Latest 4 Cases: Stewart v. Winn (Civil Rights), xNassiri v. Mackie (Civil Rights), Martinez v. LaRose (Civil Rights)

Dear House Judiciary Committee: In Questioning William Barr, Employ the Ethics Complaint That 27 Distinguished DC Lawyers Filed Wednesday

FREDERICK BARON, DENNIS AFTERGUT, AUSTIN SARAT

Frederick Baron, former associate deputy attorney general and director of the Executive Office for National Security in the Department of Justice, Dennis Aftergut, a former federal prosecutor, and Austin Sarat, Associate Provost and Associate Dean of the Faculty and William Nelson Cromwell Professor of Jurisprudence & Political Science at Amherst College, call upon the House Judiciary Committee to carefully read the ethics complaint by 27 distinguished DC lawyers against William Barr before questioning him today, July 28, 2020.

Read More

Stewart v. Winn

Docket: 18-1204

Opinion Date: July 27, 2020

Judge: Murphy

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

A Michigan jury convicted Stewart of the premeditated murder of his estranged wife, Venus. At trial Stewart’s accomplice testified that Stewart persuaded him to help by claiming that Venus was harming the couple’s children and that, if she ended up killing them, Stewart would go on a “rampage” and “go after her family and the lawyers and prosecutors and jury[.]” Stewart moved for a mistrial based on his accomplice’s testimony about what he had said, arguing that its inflammatory nature prejudiced him in the eyes of the jury. A state appellate court rejected Stewart’s due-process challenge. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the denial of federal habeas relief. The state court’s decision was not contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established Supreme Court precedent under 28 U.S.C. 2254(d)(1). A habeas challenge to an evidentiary ruling cannot satisfy section 2254(d)(1) unless the petitioner identifies a Supreme Court case establishing a due process right with regard to the specific kind of evidence at issue. Stewart identifies no Supreme Court holding barring the “specific kind of evidence,” in this case Stewart’s out-of-court statements that allegedly inflamed the jury. The state appellate court reasonably concluded that Spencer’s testimony about Stewart’s statement was not unduly prejudicial.

xNassiri v. Mackie

Docket: 19-1025

Opinion Date: July 27, 2020

Judge: Eric L. Clay

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

In 2014, a jury convicted Nassiri of the second-degree murder of his wife. In 2018, Nassiri filed a 28 U.S.C. 2254 habeas petition, asserting ineffective assistance of counsel. A magistrate determined that Nassiri’s limitations period expired on February 28, 2018—one day before his petition was submitted. Nassiri’s counsel had not recognized the petition’s untimeliness before submission and did not make any arguments in the petition about why his delay should be excused. The magistrate concluded that equitable tolling was not warranted. Nassiri’s objection to the magistrate’s report was prepared by the same counsel responsible for his untimely filing. Counsel explained that she had used a mechanical device, which wrongly indicated that the deadline was March 1, 2018. Counsel argued that she was “seriously negligent” when she “failed to use an alternative method ... after the Petitioner himself questioned the accuracy" of the deadline.” The district court denied the petition as untimely under 28 U.S.C. 2244(d)(1)(A). The court acknowledged that Nassiri’s counsel was “ineffective,” but concluded that her ineffectiveness did not merit tolling because counsel had not “abandoned” Nassiri. The Sixth Circuit vacated and remanded to allow Nassiri an opportunity to develop and present his equitable tolling argument anew, while represented by unconflicted counsel. There is some evidence that Nassiri’s attorney did not present the “full picture” of her misconduct to the district court, so jurists of reason could debate whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.

Martinez v. LaRose

Docket: 19-3908

Opinion Date: July 27, 2020

Judge: Siler

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

In 2008, Melara, a citizen of El Salvador, entered the U.S. illegally and was removed after being apprehended. In 2016, Melara’s wife and children immigrated legally to the U.S. and became lawful permanent residents. Melara then experienced threats and violence from the MS-13 gang. In 2017, Melara illegally reentered the U.S. The government apprehended him and reinstated his 2008 removal order. An asylum officer found that he had established a reasonable possibility of future torture. An IJ found that Melara was not entitled to relief. The BIA dismissed an appeal. The Sixth Circuit remanded Melara’s withholding-only case and dismissed his other petitions for review. The BIA reinstated Melara’s appeal. Melara has remained in detention since December 2017. In June 2019, Melara filed a habeas corpus petition, 28 U.S.C. 2241, seeking either release from detention or a bond hearing before a neutral decision-maker. The district court dismissed Melara’s petition, holding that 8 U.S.C. 1226 does not apply to his detention and under 8 U.S.C. 1231(a)'s indefinite-detention standard, his due process claims fail because his removal is reasonably foreseeable. The Sixth Circuit affirmed. Section 1231(a) provides the authority for detaining aliens in withholding-only proceedings. Because Melara’s removal is reasonably foreseeable, his continued detention does not violate due process under the Supreme Court’s decision in Zadvydas v. Davis.

United States v. Ward

Docket: 19-3395

Opinion Date: July 27, 2020

Judge: Gilbert Stroud Merritt, Jr.

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

Police found Moore dead with a syringe in one hand, his cell phone beside him. Officers obtained a search warrant. The cellphone revealed text messages between Moore and “Joe,” indicating that Joe had delivered drugs to Moore’s address. Officers identified “Joe” through his cellular telephone number, 18 U.S.C. 2703(d). Moore’s death had “resulted from a mixture of cocaine and fentanyl toxicity,” consistent with the drugs purchased from Joe Ward. Six months later, officers searched Ward’s curbside trash and found mail addressed to Ward, “loose marihuana, cigar wrappers, and a plastic bag that appeared to contain illicit drugs at one time.” Ward “has an extensive criminal history which includes charges of felony drug possession, trafficking in drugs, and weapons violations.” Based on that information, a magistrate issued a warrant to search Ward’s residence. During the search, officers seized approximately a kilogram of heroin, some cocaine and some hashish, five firearms, ammunition, drug packaging material, a partial bag of syringes, and a digital scale. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the suppression of that evidence. The government failed to establish a sufficient nexus between Ward’s drug-dealing and his home. The “good faith” exception does not apply. Undated charges, without further information, plus the lone trash pull are not probative of whether Ward used his residence to traffic drugs. The affidavit was “so lacking in indicia of probable cause as to render official belief in its existence entirely unreasonable.”