Latest 4 Cases: Rose v. Guyer (Civil Rights), Staten v. Davis (Civil Rights), United States v. Shehadeh (Criminal Law)

Hard Cases

JOSEPH MARGULIES

Cornell law professor Joseph Margulies uses the killing of Rayshard Brooks in Atlanta by police to explain some lessons for reform we might learn. Margulies calls upon us to use this case to reexamine the circumstances that should result in a custodial arrest and to shrink the function of police so as to use them only in the very few situations that truly require them.

Read More

Rose v. Guyer

Docket: 18-35630

Opinion Date: June 18, 2020

Judge: N. R. Smith

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

An order denying a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 70(a) motion to enforce a conditional writ of habeas corpus pertains to the district court's adjudication of the habeas petition, and 28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(1)(A) therefore requires a habeas petitioner to obtain a certificate of appealability (COA) in order to appeal the district court's order. The Ninth Circuit denied petitioner a COA and dismissed for lack of jurisdiction his appeal from the district court's order denying his motion under Rule 70(a) to enforce the district court's conditional writ of habeas corpus. Petitioner was convicted, after a jury trial, of aggravated kidnapping, assault with a weapon, and assault on a peace officer, and sentenced to 100 years in prison with 20 years suspended. In this case, petitioner failed to make the requisite showing that reasonable jurists would debate whether the district court abused its discretion in finding that the State complied with the conditional writ and thus in denying petitioner's Rule 70(a) motion. Consequently, petitioner failed to make a substantial showing under section 2253(c)(2) to permit the issuance of a COA.

Staten v. Davis

Docket: 17-99008

Opinion Date: June 18, 2020

Judge: Susan Graber

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of a habeas corpus petition challenging petitioner's conviction and capital sentence for murdering his parents. Petitioner alleged that he received ineffective assistance of trial counsel because his lawyer failed to present additional evidence of third-party culpability. Petitioner also alleged that a contract for indigent defense services between Los Angeles County and the Pomona Contract Lawyers Association (PCLA) violated his constitutional rights because it interfered with his ability to obtain second trial counsel. The panel held that trial counsel rendered deficient performance by failing to present testimony that gang members appeared to claim credit for the murders, but that counsel did not perform deficiently by failing to find and call a gang expert to counter the testimony of the prosecution's gang expert. In this case, fairminded jurists could disagree as to whether the testimony of five witnesses regarding the gang members' boasting was reasonably likely to have changed the outcome of petitioner's trial. Therefore, there were reasonable grounds for the California Supreme Court to conclude that the omitted testimony would not have altered the outcome. The panel also held that the California Supreme Court's summary denial on the merits of the PCLA contract claims (claims 1, 2, 3, and 11) was not unreasonable, because there is no evidence in the record that trial counsel was appointed to represent petitioner under the contract, was a member of the PCLA at the time the initial contract was signed, or was a signatory to the original contract.

United States v. Shehadeh

Docket: 18-10399

Opinion Date: June 18, 2020

Judge: Ryan D. Nelson

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

Defendant appealed the district court's denial of his motion to withdraw his guilty plea filed after he was sentenced to a mandatory 30 year prison term and before the district court entered an amended judgment ordering restitution. Defendant filed his notice of appeal the day after the district court entered the amended judgment. The Ninth Circuit held that defendant's appeal was timely because it was filed within fourteen days of entry of the amended judgment. The panel explained that, because the district court had delayed a final sentence by deferring restitution, it had jurisdiction to allow defendant to withdraw his guilty plea until the final restitution order if he presented a "fair and just reason" to do so. The panel affirmed the district court's refusal to allow defendant to withdraw his guilty plea because it was knowing and voluntary. Finally, the panel held that defendant's remaining claims are waived and did not consider his ineffective assistance of counsel claim for the first time on appeal.

Organic Cannabis Foundation v. Commissioner

Dockets: 17-72874, 17-72877

Opinion Date: June 18, 2020

Judge: Collins

Areas of Law: Tax Law

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the tax court's dismissal, based on lack of jurisdiction, of untimely petitions for redetermination of federal income tax deficiencies. In this case, taxpayers' attorneys selected an overnight delivery service that was not then on the published list and the error would not have mattered if the petitions had nonetheless arrived the next day. However, they were not received by the tax court until two days after being dropped off at a FedEx office in California. The panel held that the tax court did not err by concluding that the petitions had not been timely received and that the mailbox rule did not apply. Furthermore, because I.R.C. 6213(a)'s time limits are jurisdictional, the panel held that equitable exceptions such as equitable tolling and waiver do not apply. Finally, the panel held that there was no basis for declaring the notice of deficiency invalid because of an improperly addressed notice.