Peace Officer's Qualified Immunity Reinstated by SCOTUS

Assumption that the police officer acted unreasonably is not 'beyond debate.'

 

Mullenix v. Luna, U.S., No 14-1143, cert. granted, reversed 11/9/15, per curiam

    During a late-night high-speed chase, a police officer shot and killed the driver of the escaping vehicle. The driver was shot four times. The police officer, shooting from an overpass, claimed to have been aiming for the engine block of the speeding vehicle.

    The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with the district court that the officer's actions were not proper because the threat was not great enough to justify deadly force.

    The Supreme Court held that "whatever can be said of the wisdom of Mullenix's choice, this Court's precedents do not place the conclusion that he acted reasonably in these circumstances 'beyond debate.'"

Atkins Claim Not Precluded By Previous Non-Atkins Claim

Capital prisoners may file an additional habeas corpus petitions to assert an Atkins argument of intellectual disability, even if the previous non-Atkins claim relied on the petitioner's disability.

 

In re Chase, 2015 BL 351660, 5th Cir., 15-60452, 10/26/15

   The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that a capital prisoner may file a successive habeas corpus petition to assert a claim that he is intellectually disabled and ineligible for execution under Atkins v. Virginia. The court indicated that, even though his first petition claimed counsel was ineffective for failing to assert his intellectual disability to cast doubt on his confession and as mitigating evidence at sentencing, the previous claim was not an Atkins claim.
 
    The court indicated that this case was within the Atkins requirements that the claim not be presented in an prior application. The court ruled that a claim under Atkins is not the same as a pre-Atkins claim, even if that claim also relied on the petitioner's intellectual disability.

http://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/desktop/document/In_re_RICKY_R_CHASE_Movant_No_1560452_2015_BL_351660_5th_Cir_Oct_?1449508854

Wittnesses' Opinion That Speaks To All Elements of Crime Disallowed

The opinion of a detective testifying as an expert should have been inadmissible because it spoke to all elements of the crime.

 

Williams v. State, 2015 BL 353500, Ind., No. 48S05-1507-CR-424, 10/26/15

    The detective was testifying as an expert and expressed that he had "zero doubt" that the exchange between the defendant and the informant was a drug transaction. The Indiana Supreme Court ruled that his testimony should have been declared inadmissible as an opinion on the ultimate issue of guilt.

    The rules of evidence bar witnesses from giving their opinion regarding guilt or innocence, and the court ruled that the detective's testimony violated that rule. The court indicated that this was different from testimony regarding intoxication or identity, which can be allowed, because this testimony discussed all of the elements of the crime, including mens rea.

http://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/desktop/document/Williams_v_State_No_48S051507CR424_2015_BL_353500_Ind_Oct_26_2015?1449089156

Testimony is Sufficient to Satisfy Jurisdictional Hook in Bribery Case

Bribery conviction upheld because witness testified to federal fund element of crime 'without equivocation.'

 

United States v. Smith, 2015 BL 350270, 5th Cir., No. 14-60688, 10/23/15

 

    Under 18 U.S.C. § 666(a)(1)(B), it is a crime for an agent of a local government, organization, or agency to solicit or accept a bribe if the entity "receives, in any one year period, benefits in excess of $10,000 under a Federal program."

 

    The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit looked to United States v. Brown, 727 F.3d 329 (5th Cir. 2013), in which a city clerk was able to testify 'without equivocation' that the amount of federal funds received by the city engaged the federal jurisdictional hook. The court here stated that "[the clerk's] testimony alone was sufficient to support a finding that the federal funds element was met."

 

http://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/desktop/document/United_States_v_Smith_No_1460688_2015_BL_350270_5th_Cir_Oct_23_20?1449074265

Collateral Filings Do Not Limit Habeas Petitions

A petition for belated appeal of the denial of collateral relief is not an "application" for "collateral review" within the federal habeas statute.

 

Espinosa v. Sec'y, Dep't of Corr., 2015 BL 349203, 11th Cir., No. 14-10581, 10/23/15)

    The petition here is different because it does not discuss the merits of the proposed appeal. It merely reviewed the grounds for excusing a late appeal.

    The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit ruled that, because the petition here is different than an application for collateral review, it does not toll the one-year limit for seeking federal habeas relief.

http://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/document/Espinosa_v_Secy_Dept_of_Corr_No_1410581_2015_BL_349203_11th_Cir_O