Latest 3 Cases: McGehee v. Nebraska Department of Correctional Services (Civil Procedure), United States v. Hansmeier (Criminal Law), United ...

Celebrities as Glamour Species in the #MeToo Ecosystem

LESLEY WEXLER

Illinois law professor Lesley Wexler explores the extent to which the role of famous, white, cis, heterosexual women as some of the most visible faces in the #MeToo movement helps or hinders the campaign. Professor Wexler proposes that conservation biology can help us understand the role of these celebrity women and harness their contributions to the #MeToo movement and also provide better assistance to other individuals and communities facing their own #MeToo struggles.

Read More

McGehee v. Nebraska Department of Correctional Services

Docket: 19-1770

Opinion Date: February 10, 2021

Judge: Erickson

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

Plaintiffs, Arkansas prisoners who are or were on death row for capital murder convictions, filed suit alleging that Arkansas's method of execution violated the Eighth Amendment. In an effort to obtain the necessary information about the existence of known and available alternatives that would significantly reduce a substantial risk of severe pain, they served subpoenas on several state correctional departments, including the NDCS. After the NDCS objected, the district court determined that the Eleventh Amendment did not categorically bar the subpoena. NDCS appealed. While the appeal was pending, the Arkansas district court dismissed the inmates' suit and the Nebraska Supreme Court ordered public disclosure of the documents. The Eighth Circuit held that this case has been rendered moot where there is no effective relief that the court could grant because the materials at issue are already public. The court explained that requiring the return or destruction of the subpoenaed documents would provide no effective relief, and the court declined to do either. Finally, no exception to the mootness doctrine is applicable here.

United States v. Hansmeier

Docket: 19-2386

Opinion Date: February 10, 2021

Judge: Jane Louise Kelly

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

After defendant pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud and one count of conspiracy to commit money laundering, he was sentenced to 168 months in prison and ordered to pay restitution in the amount of $1,541,527.37. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment, holding that the district court did not err in denying defendant's motion to dismiss the indictment where the indictment sufficiently described a fraudulent scheme to violate the federal statutes regarding mail and wire fraud. In this case, the indictment lays out a sufficient basis for the government's charge that defendant committed fraud, and it informs the court and the parties involved of the facts underlying that charge. The court also held that the government met its burden of showing by a preponderance of the evidence that the $1,541,527.37 loss total was attributable solely to settlement payments from the fraud scheme. Therefore, the district court did not err in adopting that figure as fairly representative of the actual loss caused by the scheme.

United States v. Weber

Docket: 20-1391

Opinion Date: February 10, 2021

Judge: Erickson

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction and life sentence for five counts of aggravated sexual abuse and three counts of sexual abuse of a minor. While the court doubted that a search warrant that neither identifies the items to be seized nor incorporates an affidavit that might arguably cure the deficiencies meets the Fourth Amendment's particularity requirement, the court need not reach that question because any error in admitting the evidence was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. The court held that there was no error in admitting testimony from victims of defendant's sexual abuse because the evidence was substantially probative, rebutted defendant's defense, and was not unduly prejudicial. Finally, the court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting a missing abuse victim's testimony under Federal Rule of Evidence 804(b)(1).