Latest 3 Cases: Zahn v. Nygaard (Civil Rights), United States v. Beltran-Estrada (Criminal Law), United States v. Clemens (Criminal Law)

The Oprah Interview as a Truth Commission

LESLEY WEXLER

Illinois Law professor Lesley Wexler explains how Oprah’s interview with Prince Harry and Meghan Markle might illuminate how a formal truth commission to deal with legacies of racism and colonialism might function in the British empire. Professor Wexler describes the purpose and function of state-operated truth commissions and notes the similarities and differences between those and the interview.

Read More

Zahn v. Nygaard

Docket: 20-1429

Opinion Date: March 12, 2021

Judge: William Duane Benton

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment in favor of defendants in a 42 U.S.C. 1983 action brought by plaintiff, alleging violations of his Eighth Amendment rights. The court concluded that the district court did not clearly err in its credibility findings. In this case, plaintiff sustained a chemical burn to his left toe while power-washing the prison laundry area; the district court found credible defendant's testimony that she did not order plaintiff to clean up the chemical spill; and defendant's at-the-infirmary comment to plaintiff that he should have changed his shoes is not internally inconsistent or implausible because it is reasonable to suggest an inmate change wet shoes.

United States v. Beltran-Estrada

Docket: 19-3773

Opinion Date: March 12, 2021

Judge: Per Curiam

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion for reconsideration of his resentence under Amendment 782. In this case, the district court had granted defendant's motion for a reduction of his sentence under Amendment 782 and reduced his term of imprisonment from 235 months to 199 months. Defendant sought a further reduction to 188 months and an evidentiary hearing to address the alleged conduct violations. The court concluded that, to the extent defendant's rights were implicated by the district court's decision to reduce his sentence, the district court provided him with adequate notice and an opportunity to be heard. Furthermore, the district court provided an adequate explanation for its reduced sentence, specifically referencing defendant's alleged conduct violations while in custody and denying the motion to reconsider. In this case, the district court adopted the government's reasons why a 199-month sentence was warranted and the district court did not abuse its discretion.

United States v. Clemens

Docket: 20-1180

Opinion Date: March 12, 2021

Judge: James B. Loken

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's restitution award and special condition of supervised release after he pleaded guilty to receipt of child pornography. The court concluded that the district court did not err in imposing the mandatory minimum restitution award of $3,000 under amended 18 U.S.C. 2259(b)(2)(B). The court also concluded that the district court did not err in imposing a special condition of supervised release which prohibited defendant from viewing, possessing, producing or using sexually oriented, sexually stimulating, or pornographic materials because the condition was not void for vagueness or unconstitutionally overbroad.