Latest 3 Cases: Pirkel v. Burton (Civil Rights), Stewart v. City of Euclid (Civil Rights), United States v. Davis (Civil Rights)

#MeToo and What Men and Women Are Willing to Say and Do

SHERRY F. COLB

Cornell Law professor Sherry F. Colb explores why people have such strong feelings about the #MeToo movement (whether they are advocates or opponents) and suggests that both sides rest their positions on contested empirical assumptions about the behavior of men and women. Colb argues that what we believe to be true of men and women generally contributes to our conclusions about the #MeToo movement and our perceptions about how best to handle the accusations of those who come forward.

Read More

Pirkel v. Burton

Docket: 19-1349

Opinion Date: August 14, 2020

Judge: Donald

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

Pirkel committed 17 crimes in 2007. He was suicidal when he was arrested. Pirkel expressed reservations about entering a plea; he was given 90 minutes to read police reports. When the court reconvened, Pirkel pleaded no contest to all of the charges except criminal sexual conduct and accosting a minor, which were dismissed. Pirkel stated that he understood the plea agreement and that no one had threatened him or promised him anything. Before sentencing, Pirkel sent the judge a letter expressing concerns with his representation and his plea. The court would not allow Pirkel to withdraw his plea, refused to appoint new attorneys, and sentenced Pirkel to 20-50 years’ imprisonment for assault with intent to murder, Pirkel's appointed appellate counsel, Ujlaky, advised Pirkel that he “found no issue of even colorable merit to pursue.” The judge who had presided over Pirkel’s plea and sentencing allowed Ujlaky to withdraw and declined to appoint new counsel. Michigan courts declined to hear his delayed pro se appeal. Pirkel filed a federal habeas petition. The district court found that Pirkel failed to exhaust several claims and denied relief on the other claims. The Sixth Circuit appointed counsel and allowed Pirkel to proceed on claims that his plea was rendered involuntary by ineffective assistance of trial counsel; that appellate counsel performed ineffectively; that the court violated Pirkel’s constitutional rights by allowing appellate counsel to withdraw; and that any exhaustion defense was waived. The court then reversed the denial of relief. The Michigan trial court failed to conduct its own review of the merits of Pirkel’s appeal before allowing counsel to withdraw based on a conclusory statement. The Constitution requires more. The Michigan courts unreasonably applied clearly established federal law. Pirkel is entitled to a new first-tier appeal in the Michigan courts

Stewart v. City of Euclid

Docket: 18-3767

Opinion Date: August 14, 2020

Judge: Siler

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

Euclid Officers Rhodes and Catalani were dispatched to check on a “suspicious” vehicle in a residential area near a school. Stewart was sleeping in the car. Catalani shined his flashlight through the windows and saw indications of marijuana and alcohol. The officers did not turn on their dashboard camera, belt microphones, nor their vehicle’s overhead lights. Stewart woke up and started the car. Neither officer announced himself as a police officer. The officers attempted to remove Stewart from the car; Rhodes got into the car. Stewart drove away within the speed limit. Rhodes attempted to gain control of the gearshift and the keys while striking Stewart in the head. Rhodes eventually deployed his taser and pulled the trigger six times. The car came to a stop. Rhodes did not try to leave the car. Stewart then continued driving. When the car stopped, Rhodes fired two shots into Stewart’s torso. According to Rhodes, Stewart attempted to “punch” him. Rhodes shot Stewart three additional times. Stewart died from his wounds; 59 seconds elapsed from the time Catalani advised dispatch that Stewart was fleeing to the time he reported shots fired. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of claims under 42 U.S.C. 1983 as barred by qualified immunity but reversed the dismissal of state law claims. Regardless of whether a constitutional violation occurred, the contours of the right were not clearly established in these circumstances. Few cases have ever considered the danger faced by an officer inside a fleeing suspect’s vehicle and at what point it justifies the use of deadly force. Violation of Stewart's rights cannot be the “known or obvious consequence” disregarded by the city through its training program. Statutory immunity under Ohio law is distinct from federal qualified immunity.

United States v. Davis

Docket: 19-3094

Opinion Date: August 14, 2020

Judge: Murphy

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

Castro-White, age 23, was found dead in his bedroom with signs of an opiate overdose. The Lorain Police Department retraced Castro-White’s final hours and identified Davis as the dealer who sold the drugs that killed Castro-White. Davis had sold the drug to Castro-White's friends, who had shared the drugs. Davis received a life sentence under 21 U.S.C. 841(b)(1)(C) which imposes a mandatory life sentence if a defendant with a prior felony drug conviction distributes an illegal substance and death results from its use. The Sixth Circuit rejected Davis' argument that the enhancement does not apply because he did not sell drugs directly to Castro-White. The enhancement’s text does not require such a buyer-seller relationship with the victim. The court also rejected Davis’s other evidentiary and instructional claims. The court remanded because the government conceded that the warrant that allowed the police to search Davis’ home and seize his cellphone lacked probable cause. The government claimed that the affiant gave additional unrecorded oral testimony to establish probable cause in front of the state magistrate who issued the warrant. The Fourth Amendment does not mandate recorded testimony, so the court allowed the government to offer evidence of this additional testimony in an evidentiary hearing on remand.