Latest 3 Cases: Kapinski v. City of Albuquerque (Civil Procedure), United States v. Cantu (Constitutional Law), United States v. Barrera-Landa ...

Upcoming Execution Tests Trump Administration’s Commitment to Religious Liberty

AUSTIN SARAT

Austin Sarat—Associate Provost, Associate Dean of the Faculty, and William Nelson Cromwell Professor of Jurisprudence and Political Science at Amherst College—comments on a religious liberty issue presented by the upcoming execution of Wesley Ira Purkey. Sarat explains that Purkey’s spiritual advisor is unable to attend Purkey’s execution due to the COVID-19 pandemic, and he points out that for the federal government to carry out the execution anyway would belie its purported commitment to religious liberty.

Read More

Kapinski v. City of Albuquerque

Docket: 19-2149

Opinion Date: July 6, 2020

Judge: Timothy M. Tymkovich

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

Anthony Kapinski shot and killed two men for which he was arrested and prosecuted for murder. But at trial, the jury found him not guilty on the basis of self-defense. Trial evidence included video surveillance footage of the incident. Kapinski brought civil rights claims under 42 U.S.C. 1983 against Detective Terra Juarez and the City of Albuquerque, alleging constitutional violations stemming from Detective Juarez’s failure to mention the video surveillance footage in her warrant affidavit for Kapinski’s arrest. He argued that if the court issuing the arrest warrant had been made aware of the video footage, it would not have found probable cause supporting the warrant. Detective Juarez moved for summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds, and the district court granted her motion. The court held Kapinski failed to show a constitutional violation because the video footage would not have negated probable cause for his arrest, and, even if Detective Juarez’s omission ran afoul of the Fourth Amendment, she was nonetheless entitled to summary judgment because the law on this issue was not clearly established. To this, the Tenth Circuit agreed Kapinski failed to show a clearly established constitutional violation and therefore affirmed summary judgment.

United States v. Cantu

Docket: 19-6043

Opinion Date: July 6, 2020

Judge: Harris L. Hartz

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

Defendant Francisco Cantu, Jr. appeals the enhancement of his sentence under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA). Although he failed to preserve his challenge to the enhancement in district court, the enhancement was plainly contrary to the law of the Tenth Circuit. The ACCA enhancement rested in part on the characterization of Defendant’s two prior convictions for drug offenses under Okla. Stat. tit. 63, section 2–401(A)(1) as “serious drug offenses.” But the Court found there were "multiple means by which the Oklahoma statute can be violated, and some of those means do not satisfy the ACCA definition of serious drug offense." Under the categorical/modified-categorical approach established by the United States Supreme Court for determining whether a state conviction can qualify as an ACCA predicate conviction, the two state convictions therefore cannot be predicate convictions supporting an ACCA enhancement. The Tenth Circuit vacated Cantu's sentence and remanded for resentencing.

United States v. Barrera-Landa

Docket: 20-4044

Opinion Date: July 6, 2020

Judge: Timothy M. Tymkovich

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Government & Administrative Law, Immigration Law

This appeal involved the relationship between the detention and release provisions of two statutes: the Bail Reform Act (BRA), 18 U.S.C. sections 3141-3156, and the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. sections 1101-1537. The district court ordered Jose Luis Barrera-Landa released pending trial subject to the conditions the magistrate judge set in an earlier order. Barrera did not appeal that portion of the district court’s release order. As part of its order granting pretrial release, the district court denied Barrera’s request to enjoin the United States Immigration Customs and Enforcement (ICE) from detaining or deporting him during the pending criminal proceedings. Barrera appealed that portion of the district court’s release order. Barrera raised two new arguments on appeal: (1) 18 U.S.C. 3142(c) authorized a district court to prohibit the United States from deporting a defendant to assure his appearance in court; and (2) the Tenth Circuit should recognize the courts’ inherent supervisory authority to enjoin the United States from arresting or deporting Barrera while the criminal case is pending. Furthermore, Barrera argued the government had to choose to either proceed with immigration enforcement or his criminal prosecution, but could not do both. He asserted that if the government chose to prosecute, it had to must submit to the detention rules that governed criminal prosecutions and ICE could not detain or remove him. The district court denied Barrera’s request to enjoin ICE, explaining that every circuit that has addressed the issue has concluded that ICE may fulfill its statutory duties under the INA to detain an illegal alien regardless of a release determination under the BRA. The Tenth Circuit found Barrera forfeited his first two arguments by failing to raise them at the district court. The Court concluded the BRA and the INA "are capable of co-existing in the circumstances presented here." It therefore affirmed the district court's release order.