Latest 4 Cases: Smith v. McKinney (Civil Rights), United States v. Paris (Criminal Law), United States v. Augard (Criminal Law)

How the Coronavirus Crisis Reveals Weaknesses Not Just in America’s Public Health Systems But in Our Constitutional Doctrines

VIKRAM DAVID AMAR

Illinois Law dean and professor Vikram David Amar explains how the current crisis caused by the novel coronavirus reveals flaws in both America’s public health system and also in the country’s constitutional doctrines. Responding in part to Professor Michael C. Dorf’s column of March 15 urging uniform federal restrictions, Amar expresses doubt as to whether Congress’s powers under Article I of the Constitution permit imposition of such a lockdown in the first place.

Read More

Smith v. McKinney

Docket: 18-3613

Opinion Date: March 31, 2020

Judge: Lavenski R. Smith

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

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of prison officials in a 42 U.S.C. 1983 action brought by plaintiff, alleging violation of his due process rights in connection with discipline imposed on him. The court held that the conditions of confinement that plaintiff faced during administrative segregation and upon his transfer to the Iowa State Penitentiary did not amount to an atypical and significant deprivation when compared to the ordinary incidents of prison life. The court held that the transfer to a higher security facility alone is insufficient to establish an atypical and significant hardship, and thus the court must examine the conditions of confinement. In this case, plaintiff failed to set forth facts describing his conditions of confinement while in administrative segregation and disciplinary detention. Furthermore, plaintiff's reference to his loss of employment, wages, security classification, security points, and inmate tier status upon his transfer did not amount to atypical and significant hardship under precedent.

United States v. Paris

Docket: 18-3085

Opinion Date: March 31, 2020

Judge: Stras

Areas of Law: Criminal Law, White Collar Crime

After defendant pleaded guilty to honest services wire fraud, he claimed that the district court should have dismissed the indictment against him after alleged government misconduct came to light. Defendant was a college president involved in a bribery-and-kickback scheme with three main participants, including a state senator and a business consultant. The Eighth Circuit affirmed, holding that defendant lacked standing to assert a violation of his Sixth Amendment right to counsel and he failed to show the constitutional violation that the senator allegedly suffered specifically affected his right to a fair trial. In this case, the senator's attorney had previously represented a law enforcement agent, who was present at an interview between the senator and government agents, in a divorce proceeding. The court also held that a co-defendant's decision to record numerous conversations was made on his own and there was no government action involved that violated defendant's constitutional rights. Finally, the court held that the agent's decision to erase his laptop's hard drive did not entitle defendant to dismissal.

United States v. Augard

Docket: 19-1507

Opinion Date: March 31, 2020

Judge: Erickson

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion to dismiss evidence uncovered when police searched the home he shared with his parents. Defendant pleaded guilty to two counts of production of child pornography and one count of possession of child pornography. The court held that, although the warrant lacked probable cause, it fell within the Leon good faith exception to the exclusionary rule. In this case, considering the specific nature of the crimes being investigated, the evidence supporting the warrant application was not so stale as to render the officer’s reliance on the warrant entirely unreasonable. Furthermore, the type of evidence sought establishes the warrant was not so stale that the officer's reliance was entirely unreasonable; there was a sufficient nexus connecting the evidence to the house; and defendant's remaining challenges were rejected.

United States v. Juhic

Docket: 19-1151

Opinion Date: March 31, 2020

Judge: Erickson

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for transportation and receipt of child pornography. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by refusing defendant's request for a court appointed expert to examine a law enforcement agent's laptop under Federal Rule of Evidence 706. In this case, defendant presented no evidence in support of his theory that ransomware on the agent's laptop planted child pornography on defendant's laptop. The court also held that the district court did not err in refusing to allow defendant to present his innocent intent theory to the jury; any error in admitting the notations on the computer-generated reports was harmless; and the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's request for a jury recess after a juror informed the court she was suffering from a migraine, was provided pain medicine, and then no longer appeared to be in pain.