Garza v. Briones

Docket: 18-40982
Opinion Date: November 25, 2019
Judge: Jerry E. Smith
Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to law enforcement officers in an excessive force action filed under 42 U.S.C. 1983 by the estate of the deceased. The court held that the evidence did not raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the officers' use of deadly force violated the deceased's Fourth Amendment rights. Therefore, the officers were entitled to qualified immunity. In this case, the officers had probable cause to conclude that the deceased posed a serious threat of physical injury or death where the officers thought they were confronting an unpredictable man armed with a dangerous weapon.

Read Opinion

United States v. Johnson

Docket: 18-50826
Opinion Date: November 22, 2019
Judge: Kurt D. Engelhardt
Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty, pursuant to a plea agreement, to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute fentanyl, methamphetamine, and cocaine, and possession of a firearm and ammunition by a felon. The court held that, although the district court erroneously stated that defendant "had dope" in describing his 2006 arrest, there was no additional, obvious evidence indicating that the district court mistakenly believed defendant had three drug convictions or that the district court's decision to impose an upward variance was affected by such a belief. Therefore, the district court's single misstatement, when considered in the context of the record as a whole, did not affect defendant's substantial rights, and thus defendant failed to satisfy the third prong of the plain error test.

Read Opinion

Louisiana Supreme Court sidesteps split-jury question, sends case back to Sabine Parish judge

www.nola.com/news/courts/article_ae6dc536-0b14-11ea-9d5c-07ad255f34f9.html

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

Docket: 18-20729
Opinion Date: November 14, 2019
Judge: Stuart Kyle Duncan
Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Fifth Circuit reversed the district court's grant of defendant's motion to suppress cell-site location information (CSLI), declaring the court order and warrant void. The Supreme Court held in Carpenter v. United States that if the government wants CSLI it needs a valid search warrant. On the same day Carpenter was decided, federal prosecutors in this case applied for the search warrant for the CSLI they already had. The court held that the Krull strand of the good-faith exception properly applies to the 2015 CSLI, since it was obtained pursuant to a pre-Carpenter warrantless order authorized by statute. The court stated that the government pursued the statutory order in good faith, and thus the CSLI should not have been suppressed. In regard to the 2014 CSLI, the court held that the Leon strand of the good-faith exception applied because those records were first sought and obtained under a post-Carpenter search warrant. The court stated that the government acted in good faith when applying for the search warrant and, even if the government did not act in good faith, the warrant was supported by probable cause. Finally, the court held that any suppression of toll records and subscriber information under Carpenter was erroneous because Carpenter only applies to evidence that can be used to track a person's physical movements over time.

Read Opinion

Louisiana Supreme Court Opinions
Louisiana v. Hodge

Docket: 2019-KA-00568
Opinion Date: November 19, 2019
Judge: John L. Weimer
Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

By separate bills of information, defendant Valentino Hodge was charged with one count of domestic abuse battery by strangulation in the presence of a minor, and with one count of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. Defendant pleaded not guilty, and the charges were slated for a jury trial. Owing in large measure to the defendant’s vacillation between being represented by appointed counsel and seeking retained counsel, the trial date was continued several times. In January 2019, the state filed a motion in limine seeking to have the district court declare that the defendant would be tried by a jury composed of twelve jurors, ten of whom must concur to render a verdict. The next day, without a hearing, the district court signed an order denying the state’s motion in limine and declaring that defendant was entitled to a unanimous jury verdict pursuant to the district court’s own earlier ruling in Louisiana v. Maxie, 11th Judicial District Court, No. 13-CR-72522, October 11, 2018. The Louisiana Supreme Court determined the district court committed two interrelated errors: (1) creating, on its own initiative, a constitutional challenge to statutory law and to provisions of the Louisiana Constitution; and (2) striking down the jury verdict regime as unconstitutional on the basis of an earlier, nonbinding district court holding. Based on these errors, the Supreme Court vacated the district court’s ruling and remanded for further proceedings.

Read Opinion

In narrow victory, Louisiana Governor John Bel Edwards reelected for second term


www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/news/politics/elections/article_2b7c0b7c-08a5-11ea-bcfe-1bd7f6b19e9d.html

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

Docket: 18-20729
Opinion Date: November 14, 2019
Judge: Stuart Kyle Duncan
Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Fifth Circuit reversed the district court's grant of defendant's motion to suppress cell-site location information (CSLI), declaring the court order and warrant void. The Supreme Court held in Carpenter v. United States that if the government wants CSLI it needs a valid search warrant. On the same day Carpenter was decided, federal prosecutors in this case applied for the search warrant for the CSLI they already had. The court held that the Krull strand of the good-faith exception properly applies to the 2015 CSLI, since it was obtained pursuant to a pre-Carpenter warrantless order authorized by statute. The court stated that the government pursued the statutory order in good faith, and thus the CSLI should not have been suppressed. In regard to the 2014 CSLI, the court held that the Leon strand of the good-faith exception applied because those records were first sought and obtained under a post-Carpenter search warrant. The court stated that the government acted in good faith when applying for the search warrant and, even if the government did not act in good faith, the warrant was supported by probable cause. Finally, the court held that any suppression of toll records and subscriber information under Carpenter was erroneous because Carpenter only applies to evidence that can be used to track a person's physical movements over time.

Read Opinion

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

Docket: 18-20169
Opinion Date: November 7, 2019
Judge: Per Curiam
Areas of Law: Criminal Law, White Collar Crime

The Fifth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence imposed after she was convicted of mail fraud, wire fraud, theft of public money, aggravated identity theft, and unlawful monetary transactions. The court held that the district court did not clearly err by applying a two level sentencing enhancement under USSG 3C1.1 for obstruction of justice. In light of the factual findings of this case, the district court concluded that defendant obstructed a governmental investigation that was in progress or would be coming about.

Read Opinion

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

Docket: 17-11452
Opinion Date: November 5, 2019
Judge: Stuart Kyle Duncan
Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for illegally possessing drugs and firearms. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting jail phone records where the government produced sufficient evidence to authenticate the records; the calls were also admissible because the district court was convinced that the recordings accurately produced the auditory experience; the district court did not plainly err by admitting testimony regarding why drug dealers routinely use guns in their crimes because, even assuming the district court violated Federal Rule of Evidence 704(b), the error did not affect defendant's substantial rights; and the district court did not plainly err by allowing the prosecutor to suggest that the detective had no reason to lie.

Read Opinion

US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Opinions
Ramey v. Davis

Docket: 18-70034
Opinion Date: November 1, 2019
Judge: Stephen Andrew Higginson
Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

Petitioner, an inmate convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death, filed a federal petition for habeas corpus relief. After his petition was denied, he requested a certificate of appealability (COA), which was also denied. Petitioner then applied for a COA from the Fifth Circuit. The Fifth Circuit granted petitioner's COA on his Batson claim and Strickland guilt phase claim, holding that reasonable jurists could conclude that the issues presented were adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further. However, the court denied petitioner's application for a COA on his Strickland mitigation phase claim, holding that petitioner failed to show what more trial counsel could have done at the mitigation phase. Therefore, reasonable jurists would not debate the district court's decision to uphold the state court's reasoning.

Read Opinion

US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Opinions
Thompson v. Davis

Docket: 17-70008
Opinion Date: October 30, 2019
Judge: Higginbotham
Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of habeas relief to petitioner because he failed to show any evidence demonstrating that the State controlled, or even consented to, a government informant's activity. Therefore, there was no valid Massiah claim that could have affected the outcome of the punishment at retrial.

Read Opinion