Justia U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Temporary civil commitment at New Jersey psychiatric hospitals is subject to regular review; patients have the right to counsel, to be present at the hearing, to present evidence, and to cross-examine witnesses. In a challenge to the state’s “Rennie process” for forcible medication, the Third Circuit held, in 1984, that civilly committed psychiatric patients “have a qualified constitutional right to refuse antipsychotic medication” in nonemergency situations and the process accommodated that right consistent with the Due Process Clause. A 2010 challenge alleged that the Rennie process violated the Constitution, the Americans With Disabilities Act, and the Rehabilitation Act, and demanded that the state “provide patients who refuse the non-emergency administration of psychotropic medication with meaningful due process protections—including legal counsel, notice and a hearing before a judicial decision-maker.” The state replaced the Rennie process with policies for forcible treatment in emergencies (AB 5:04A), which were not challenged, and nonemergent situations (AB 5:04B). The nonemergency policy permits longer-term forcible medication of a patient, involuntarily committed, who, as a result of a diagnosed mental illness, poses a substantial risk of serious harm to self, others, or property “within the reasonably foreseeable future” if psychotropic medication is not administered. Patients who satisfy the substantive requirements may be forcibly medicated only pursuant to procedures that stop short of prior judicial review. The Third Circuit affirmed that AB 5:04B is valid, except as to patients who have been not to require continued commitment but who remain in custody pending transfer. View "Disability Rights N.J., Inc. v. Comm'r N.J. Dep't of Human Servs." on Justia Law

Fazio, a permanent resident alien, was charged with conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine. Fazio pleaded guilty to the lesser-included offense of conspiring to distribute more than 200 grams but fewer than 300 grams of cocaine, waiving the right to take a direct appeal from his conviction or sentence, except if the government appealed from the sentence or the sentence exceeded the applicable statutory limits or unreasonably exceeded the Sentencing Guidelines range. Fazio waived the right to move to vacate sentence (28 U.S.C. 2255) and the right to file any other collateral proceeding attacking his conviction or sentence. The plea agreement stated: Fazio recognizes that pleading guilty may have consequences with respect to his immigration status … no one, including his own attorney or the district court, can predict to a certainty the effect of his conviction on his immigration status. The court reviewed the waiver in detail at the hearing. The Third Circuit affirmed denial of Fazio’s subsequent 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion to vacate his sentence, in which he argued that counsel was ineffective in failing to warn Fazio properly of the immigration consequences of his plea, as required by the Supreme Court in Padilla v. Kentucky, 2010. View "United States v. Fazio" on Justia Law

In February 2009, Santini was working at his family’s Harmony Township, New Jersey dairy farm, when a fight broke out. Santini and 10 others witnessed the fight. About 20 local and state police officers arrived after the fight ended. Santini, standing outside of the milk house, spoke with a Greenwich Township officer about what he had witnessed. According to Santini, State Trooper Fuhrmann yelled at Santini to take his hands out of his pockets. Santini maintains that he complied and explained that his hands were cold because he had been working all day milking cows. Fuhrmann responded: “I don’t care. Keep them where I [can] see them.” Santini continued to try to warm his hands and Fuhrmann continued to object. Santini told Fuhrmann that he was going to return to work because he had already told the other officers his story and began to walk away. Santini claims he was kicked, punched, and held on the ground, then was sprayed with pepper spray and handcuffed. His medical records from the incident reveal no lasting injuries. The Troopers’ story differs from Santini’s. The district court rejected Santini’s civil rights suit on summary judgment. The Third Circuit vacated, finding material issues of fact as to whether Santini’s constitutional rights were violated. View "Santini v. Fuentes" on Justia Law

DEA agents executed a search warrant in Reading, Pennsylvania and arrested Bui at 1307 Lorraine Road. Bui admitted that “the only reason they purchased that house was to . . . convert it into a marijuana grow factory.” Bui was indicted on: conspiracy to manufacture more than 1,000 marijuana plants, 21 U.S.C. 846; manufacturing, and aiding and abetting the manufacturing, of more than 100 marijuana plants, 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1) and 18 U.S.C. 2; using the house to manufacture and to distribute marijuana, 21 U.S.C. 856(a)(1); and manufacturing and distributing marijuana within 1,000 feet of Hampden Park, a school district athletic field, 21 U.S.C. 860(a) and 18 U.S.C. 2. Bui pled guilty to counts one and four and stipulated that the house was within 1000 feet of Hampden Park, so that his base offense level should be increased two levels. According to Bui, he pled guilty because counsel told him he would receive a reduced sentence by doing so and told family members that Bui was eligible for a reduced sentence under the “safety valve,” 18 U.S.C. 3553. At sentencing, counsel withdrew that motion, explaining that section 3553(f) did not apply to 21 U.S.C. 860 convictions. Bui was sentenced to the mandatory minimum of 120 months’ imprisonment. The district court rejected his pro se habeas petition. The Third Circuit vacated, finding that Bui’s counsel provided ineffective assistance. View "United States v. Bui" on Justia Law

Norris was arrested in 1999 for aggravated assault. Norris complained; the court appointed new counsel for post-verdict motions, but rejected claims of ineffective assistance and imposed sentence under Pennsylvania’s “three strikes” law. In 2003, Norris filed a pro se petition for collateral relief, asserting that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to seek dismissal on speedy trial grounds because more than three years elapsed between issuance of the criminal complaint and the trial. The state court dismissed, ruling that the issue lacked merit. On appeal, his attorney (Wolfe) abandoned that argument despite Norris’s insistence that it be included. In pro se filings, Norris presented the argument and claimed ineffective assistance. The court affirmed dismissal, holding that Wolfe had not provided ineffective assistance by declining to make the argument. Norris filed a federal habeas petition, arguing that trial and direct appeal counsel were ineffective in failing to raise the speedy trial issue. The court denied the petition because of procedural default. In 2012, Norris moved for relief from judgment invoking a 2012 Supreme Court holding that attorney error in collateral proceedings may sometimes excuse procedural default of a habeas petitioner’s ineffective assistance claim. The district court denied his motion. The Third Circuit affirmed. Norris’s claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel was presented on initial collateral review and only waived on collateral appeal, so Martinez does not justify relief. View "Norris v. Brooks" on Justia Law

The IRS received information from French authorities concerning United States persons with undisclosed bank accounts at HSBC and issued summonses to the Chabots requesting that they appear to give testimony and produce documents about their foreign bank accounts for the period from January 1, 2006, to December 31, 2009. The Chabots’ attorney notified the IRS that the Chabots would not appear, were asserting their Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, and would not produce the requested documents. The IRS amended the two summonses, limiting their scope to only those documents required to be maintained under 31 C.F.R. 1010.420. The Chabots continued to claim the Fifth Amendment privilege, and the IRS filed a petition to enforce the amended summonses.The Chabots appealed the district court's grant of the petition. The Third Circuit affirmed, noting that six other circuits have held that these records fall within the required records exception to the Fifth Amendment privilege. View "United States v. Chabot" on Justia Law

On June 16, Lokhande was found bleeding on a sidewalk in Independence Park. Lokhande could not recall being assaulted. Robles testified that on that night, he, Baldwin, and Santos drove into Philadelphia, using Baldwin’s sedan with a black hood that did not match the car. Santos and Baldwin exited the car. Robles remained inside, too drunk to walk. Three men joined them, talking and drinking. A man approached and asked for help finding his car. Robles then saw the man “being attacked,” with Baldwin and Santos were “around” the victim; he admitted that “any” or “all” of the men could have attacked the victim. Video surveillance tape showed a tan Ford with a black hood leaving the scene. On June 20, Santos and Baldwin returned to Independence Park and encountered Crumbock and his wife, D, in the same location. Crumbock testified that the men “surrounded” him, two jumped on his back and “punched him,” and his phone and wallet were stolen. A ranger heard D’s screams and ran after the man. Crumbock and D identified Santos. Two days later, police stopped the car with Baldwin, Santos, and Robles inside. The Third Circuit rejected challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence, but vacated Baldwin’s conviction because the prosecution’s summation advocated a basis for conviction that was not charged. The court vacated one assault conviction as violating the Double Jeopardy Clause. View "United States v. Centeno" on Justia Law

Edwards was convicted of attempted possession with intent to distribute cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1) and 21 U.S.C. 846, but was acquitted of an accompanying conspiracy charge under section 846. The Third Circuit vacated, finding that the government violated Edwards’s Fifth Amendment rights by repeatedly referring to Edwards’s post-arrest, post-Miranda silence in its case-in-chief and during closing arguments. The error was not harmless. View "United States v. Edwards" on Justia Law

In 1973, Doe organized his medical practice as a “professional association,” a type of corporation doctors are permitted to form under New Jersey law. Since its creation, Doe has operated his practice through that entity. As of 2011, the entity employed six people. The government alleges that Doe entered into an illicit agreement with OTE, a blood laboratory, whereby it paid him monetary bribes for referring patients to it for blood testing. A grand jury subpoena was served on the entity’s custodian of records, directing it to turn over documents, including records of patients referred to OTE, lease and consulting agreements, checks received by it for reasons other than patient treatment, correspondence regarding its use of OTE, correspondence with specified individuals and entities, and basic corporate records. The district court denied Doe’s motion to quash. Doe persistently refused to let the entity comply; the court found it in civil contempt. Meanwhile, the entity fired its employees and hired independent contractors, tasked with “[m]aint[aining] accurate and complete medical records, kept in accordance with HIPAA and Patient Privacy standards,” and assisting with billing practices. The Third Circuit affirmed, agreeing that Supreme Court precedent indicated that corporations may not assert a Fifth Amendment privilege, and that the subpoena was not overbroad in violation of the Fourth Amendment. View "In Re: The Matter Of The Grand Jury" on Justia Law

The 1988 Child Protection and Obscenity Enforcement Act requires producers of visual depictions of “actual sexually explicit conduct” to keep records documenting the identity and age of every performer in those depictions, 18 U.S.C. 2257(a). The 2006 Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act, 18 U.S.C. 2257A, extended similar requirements to producers of depictions of “simulated sexually explicit conduct.” Producers are required to examine “an identification document” for each performer and maintain records listing each performer’s name, date of birth, and any other name that the performer has previously used, and to maintain records, available for inspection “at all reasonable times.” Producers must “affix[] to every copy” of covered depictions “a statement describing where the records required . . . with respect to all performers . . . may be located.” After the district court dismissed a challenge, the Third Circuit identified viable as-applied and facial claims under the First and Fourth Amendments. On remand, the district court upheld the laws except that inspections without prior notice to examine records located in private residences violated the Fourth Amendment. The court granted only declaratory relief. The Third Circuit affirmed in part. The administrative search regime violates the Fourth Amendment as applied; the laws do not violate the First Amendment. View "Free Speech Coal. v. Att'y Gen. of the United States" on Justia Law