​United States v. Perales

Docket: 17-40005
Opinion Date: March 30, 2018
Judge: Carl E. Stewart
Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion to suppress several bundles of cocaine discovered and seized after he consented to the search of his vehicle. The court held that the district court did not clearly err in finding that defendant's consent to the search was voluntary where the law enforcement agent did not use coercive police procedures to make defendant consent to the search of his vehicle.

​US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Opinions
In Re: Richard Drummond

Docket: 17-20618
Opinion Date: March 29, 2018
Judge: Per Curiam
Areas of Law: Civil Procedure

The Fifth Circuit granted relator's petitioner for a writ of mandamus directing the district court to resolve this False Claims Act case. The court held that the requirements for mandamus relief were easily met in this case, because the case has been pending for over nine years and the two motions identified in the petition have been pending for approximately four years. The court reasoned that the district judge has had ample time to consider the pending motions—including the nearly six months since relator filed his petition for a writ of mandamus.

​
Jury votes could stay secret under proposed Louisiana law

www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2018/03/jury_information_public_louisi.html

Jones v. Davis

Docket: 15-70040
Opinion Date: March 27, 2018
Judge: Priscilla Richman Owen
Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

Petitioner, convicted of capital murder of a police officer and sentenced to death, argued that he was entitled to federal habeas relief on his claim that the press coverage of the crime and the presence of uniformed police officers in the gallery during his trial created an inherently prejudicial atmosphere that violated his right to a fair trial. On the merits, the Fifth Circuit held that 28 U.S.C. 2254(e)(2) barred consideration of the media reports included in petitioner's federal petition, and the district court properly declined to consider them. The court also held that petitioner's fair trial claim did not warrant habeas relief. The court explained that other courts have declined to find the mere presence of officers in a courtroom sufficient to support inherent prejudice, and the record before the court did not suggest the police presence intimidated the jury or disrupted the factfinding process in any way. Furthermore, even assuming that section 2254(e)(2) did not bar this court's consideration of the media-related evidence presented for the first time in petitioner's federal habeas petition, his fair trial claim still failed. Finally, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying discovery, nor did it err in resting its conclusion on the evidence presented in the federal habeas petition. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's denial of relief on the merits.

US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Opinions
United States v. Mendez

Docket: 16-41057
Opinion Date: March 23, 2018
Judge: Carolyn Dineen King
Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence for being a felon in possession of a firearm. On appeal, defendant challenged the admission of statements he made to officers confessing to his ownership of the firearms and ammunition. The court held that the connection between the unlawful stop and search and defendant's subsequent statements was sufficiently attenuated. In this case, defendant was informed of, and waived his Miranda rights; his lawful arrest for being a felon in possession of ammunition was a critical intervening circumstance; and the misconduct at issue was not purposeful and flagrant, but instead was motivated by legitimate safety concerns.

​US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Opinions
Legendre v. Huntington Ingalls, Inc.

Docket: 17-30371
Opinion Date: March 16, 2018
Judge: Stephen Andrew Higginson
Areas of Law: Civil Procedure, Personal Injury

Plaintiffs filed suit against Avondale and others in state court, alleging that defendants exposed their sister, Mary Jane Wilde, to asbestos and caused her to die of mesothelioma. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision to remand the case back to state court after removal to federal court under 28 U.S.C. 1442. The court held that, under controlling precedent, Avondale must show a causal connection between the federal officer’s direction and the conduct challenged by plaintiffs. Because Avondale has failed to make this showing of a causal nexus, the district court properly remanded the case back to state court.

​
Louisiana Supreme Court Opinions
Louisiana v. Lacaze

Docket: 2016-KP-0234
Opinion Date: March 13, 2018
Judge: John L. Weimer
Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

The United States Supreme Court remanded this case back to the Louisiana Supreme Court, vacating the Louisiana Court’s decision relating to defendant Rogers Lacaze’s petition for post-conviction relief. On remand, the Louisiana Court was instructed to consider whether the trial judge’s recusal should have been required because “objectively speaking, 'the probability of actual bias on the part of the judge or decisionmaker is too high to be constitutionally tolerable’” under the circumstances. After carefully considering all the facts, the Louisiana Supreme Court found defendant did not show that the circumstances created an unconstitutionally high risk of bias, and the original denial of the defendant’s recusal claim in Louisiana v. LaCaze, 16-0234 (La. 12/16/16), 208 So.3d 856, was correct.

Read Opinion

Louisiana Supreme Court Opinions
Iberville Parish Sch. Bd. v. Louisiana Board of Elementary & Secondary Education

Docket: 2017-C-0257
Opinion Date: March 13, 2018
Judge: Genovese
Areas of Law: Civil Procedure, Constitutional Law, Education Law, Tax Law

The issue this case presented for the Louisiana Supreme Court’s review centered on whether the Court of Appeal erred in declaring unconstitutional certain provisions of Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 55 of 2014, which applied the formula contained in La.R.S. 17:3995 and allocated Minimum Foundation Program (“MFP”) funding to New Type 2 charter schools.

After review, the Supreme Court determined the appellate court erred in declaring the constitution prohibits the payment of MFP funds to New Type 2 charter schools. In this case, the plaintiffs’ view was that local taxes were being used to improve privately-owned facilities to which the public had no title or interest. The Court determined this was a mischaracterization. “[L]ocal revenue is considered in the allotment of MFP funds to public schools. Calculation of the local cost allocation includes sales and ad valorem taxes levied by the local school board. These figures are used to calculate a per-pupil local cost allocation.

​A public school’s allotment of MFP funding is based on the number of students enrolled in that particular public school irrespective of whether the improvements made to that particular public school are vested in the public or not. Thus, the use of a phrase in an ad valorem tax, such as 'improvements shall vest in the public’ does not prohibit the use of local revenue in the funding of New Type 2 charter schools and cannot be used as defense to thwart the goal of La. Const. art. VIII, §13(C). Thus, SCR 55 does not transfer actual local tax revenue to charter schools.” Thus, the appellate court’s declaration of unconstitutionality was reversed.

​US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Opinions
Al Copeland Investments, LLC v. First Specialty Insurance Corp.

Docket: 17-30557
Opinion Date: March 9, 2018
Judge: Higginbotham
Areas of Law: Civil Procedure, Insurance Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of plaintiffs' suit based on forum non conveniens. The court held that Louisiana Revised Statute 22:868 does not evince a public policy against forum-selection clauses in insurance contracts. Therefore, the court found that the parties' insurance policy contained an enforceable forum-selection clause requiring litigation in New York state court. Furthermore, the public interest factors did not weigh in favor of keeping this case in Louisiana.

​US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Opinions
United States v. Marroquin

Docket: 16-40368
Opinion Date: March 2, 2018
Judge: Costa
Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Fifth Circuit withdrew its prior opinion and issued the following opinion. The court held that the district court erred by assigning criminal history points for both defendant's North Carolina offenses given that they were consolidated into a single judgment. Furthermore, such error was obvious and affected the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings. In this case, the error reflected a basic misunderstanding of the state sentencing scheme under which defendant was sentenced. Therefore, the court vacated and remanded for resentencing.

​US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Opinions
Doe v. Office of Refugee Resettlement

Docket: 18-40146
Opinion Date: March 1, 2018
Judge: Per Curiam
Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law

The Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) petitioned for an emergency stay of the district court's order denying removal under 28 U.S.C. 1442, in an action where an unaccompanied alien minor requested Texas's judicial bypass regime for the purpose of an abortion. The Fifth Circuit vacated the district court's denial of removal and remanded to the district court so that it may conduct a hearing to resolve the question of whether Jane Doe presently wished to pursue an abortion. On remand, the district court was instructed to appoint a guardian ad litem.