Justia U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Defendant Elliot Rivera appealed his convictions for murder for hire and conspiracy to commit murder for hire. At trial, evidence was presented showing that Defendant attempted to hire a hit man to murder a person on whom Defendant held a large life insurance policy. Seeking to reverse his conviction, Defendant argued: (1) the district court erred in admitting tape-recorded conversations between himself and the wife of the coconspirator in this plot; (2) the district court erred in allowing the wife to testify about her understanding of the meaning of certain parts of the taped conversations between herself and Defendant; and (3) that prosecutorial misconduct occurred when the prosecutor asked Defendant on cross-examination whether other witnesses had lied and when at closing the prosecutor suggested to the jury that Defendant had lied during his testimony. Finding no reversible error, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed. View "United States v. Rivera" on Justia Law

In February 2011, officers were searching for defendant Shedrick Hollis based on an outstanding Georgia arrest warrant for a parole violation. Law enforcement learned that Hollis could be found in an apartment the officers suspected to be a drug house. After surrounding the apartment, the officers saw Hollis through a window, broke through the door, and arrested him, and other officers conducted a protective sweep of the apartment. During that sweep, the officers discovered marijuana and firearms in plain view. After he was indicted on charges of possession of a controlled substance with intent to distribute, felon in possession of a firearm, and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug-trafficking crime, Hollis moved to suppress the drugs and firearms found in the apartment. The district court denied his motion. Hollis was convicted on all counts. The issue this appeal presented for the Eleventh Circuit's review centered on whether the subject of an arrest warrant could challenge the use of evidence found in plain view during a protective sweep in a third party’s residence. Because the evidence was discovered in plain view during a protective sweep incident to a valid arrest, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's denial of Hollis' suppression motion. View "United States v. Hollis" on Justia Law

A jury convicted the defendant Jerry Thomas Davis of possessing an unregistered short-barreled shotgun, and he appealed. This case presented three issues for the Eleventh Circuit's review: (1) does Federal Rule of Evidence 610, which excludes evidence of a witness’s “religious beliefs or opinions . . . to attack or support the witness’s credibility,” bar evidence that a witness’s job is city and police-department chaplain, even when neither side argues that this affected credibility?; (2) must a court give a special jury instruction on the credibility of a law enforcement officer and the defendant’s right to attack an officer’s credibility?; and (3) may a court that has already given one modified Allen charge tell a deadlocked jury to keep deliberating (with a reasonable suggestion for how to do it) while also telling the jurors they will be released if they are unable to agree within a short additional period of deliberations? Finding no abuse of discretion in any of the issues raised on appeal, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed defendant’s conviction. View "United States v. Davis" on Justia Law

A Florida jury convicted Antonio Melton of armed robbery and first-degree felony murder for shooting George Carter during a robbery of Carter’s pawn shop. He was sentenced to death. Melton sought postconviction relief from the Supreme Court of Florida, which denied relief. Melton then filed a federal petition for a writ of habeas corpus, arguing that under "Roper v. Simmons," (543 U.S. 551 (2005)), the state courts violated his rights under the Eighth Amendment when they relied on a juvenile conviction as an aggravating factor in a capital case and when they failed to consider his "mental and emotional age." The district court denied the petition and refused to grant a certificate of appealability. Melton moved the Eleventh Circuit to grant him a certificate of appealability, and that request was denied. Melton moved for reconsideration to include as new issues his arguments based on Roper. Because neither issue was debatable, the Eleventh Circuit denied Melton’s motion. View "Melton v. Secretary, Florida Dept. of Corrections" on Justia Law

Plaintiff-appellant Kelly Gissendaner was convicted for murdering her husband, for which she was sentenced to death by lethal injection. She filed a 42 U.S.C. 1983 lawsuit alleging Georgia's method of execution violated the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. After a hearing, the district court denied plaintiff's request for a temporary restraining order, and dismissed her complaint for failing to state a claim for relief. She appealed that judgment. After review, the Eleventh Circuit concluded the district court did not err in arriving at its decision, and affirmed. View "Gissendaner v. Commissioner, Georgia Dept. of Corrections" on Justia Law

Petitioner-appellant Rodolfo Hernandez pleaded guilty to one count of conspiring to possess with intent to distribute at least 1,000 kilograms of a substance containing marijuana, and three counts of possession with intent to distribute at least 100 kilograms of a substance containing marijuana. After Hernandez entered his plea, but before his conviction became final, the Supreme Court decided "Padilla v. Kentucky," holding that counsel must inform her client whether his plea carries a risk of deportation. Hernandez later moved to vacate his sentence based on ineffective assistance of counsel. The district court concluded counsel did not render ineffective assistance and denied the motion without an evidentiary hearing. The issue this case presented for the Eleventh Circuit's review was whether the district court abused its discretion when it refused that evidentiary hearing. Concluding that it did, the Eleventh Circuit vacated the district court's judgment, and remanded the case with instructions to conduct the evidentiary hearing. View "Hernandez v. United States" on Justia Law

Florida inmate Paul Everett petitioned for habeas relief after he was convicted of first-degree murder, for which he received the death penalty. The district court denied his petition, but granted a certificate of appealability (COA) as to one issue: whether a law enforcement officer's request for a consent to search from, or service of an arrest warrant on, a defendant in custody who invoked his right to counsel violated the Fifth Amendment. Upon Everett's motion, the Eleventh Circuit expanded the COA to include an additional issue: whether the district court erred in denying Everett's claim that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance in the investigation and presentation of mitigating evidence during the penalty phase of his 2002 trial. Having considered the state court record, the district court's thorough order, and the parties' submissions, and with the benefit of oral argument, the Eleventh Circuit found no reversible error in the district court's denial of Everett's petition for habeas relief, and affirmed. View "Everett v. Sec'y, Florida Dept. of Corrections" on Justia Law

The Military and Overseas Voter Empowerment Act (UOCAVA), Pub. L. No. 111-84, Subtitle H, 575-589, 123 Stat. 2190, 2322, amended the Uniformed and Overseas Citizen Absentee Voting Act of 1986, 42 U.S.C. 1973ff. The UOCAVA now requires a state, absent a hardship waiver, to transmit an absentee ballot to the voter "not later than 45 days before the election[.]" Georgia and Alabama appealed the district court's grant of preliminary injunctive relief, summary judgment, and permanent injunctive relief in a suit brought by the United States against Georgia and Alabama. The district court ruled that the 45-day transmittal requirement applies to runoff elections for federal office, and that the runoff election schemes in these two states violated UOCAVA. After the district court had issued its ruling and after the briefs in this appeal were filed, the Georgia Legislature passed H.B. 310, which in relevant part amends Georgia's election calendar and voting procedures to comply with the 45-day transmittal requirement. In light of H.B. 310, the court dismissed Georgia's appeal as moot. View "United States v. State of Georgia" on Justia Law

The Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act (UOCAVA), 52 U.S.C. 20302(a)(8)(A), includes a variety of measures that states are required to adopt in order to accommodate military voters when they administer federal elections. At issue is section 20302(a)(8)(A)'s requirement that, when a qualifying military or overseas voter requests an absentee ballot for a federal election, a state must transmit a ballot to that voter forty-five days before the federal election. The United States filed suit against Alabama seeking to enjoin the State from holding federal runoff elections forty-two days after federal primary elections. When the court looked at the text of section 20302(a)(9), the court found that it directs states only to "establish a written plan" in preparation for runoff elections, and makes no claim that it abrogates the mandatory forty-five day transmission timeline. In light of the plain language of this substantive command - and Congress's clear intent to prioritize the empowerment of military voters through clear and accessible absentee voting procedures - the court concluded that section 20302(a)(9) does not alter the court's interpretation. Therefore, the court held that the State must transmit validly requested absentee ballots to eligible UOCAVA voters forty-five days before each federal election, whether that election is primary, general, special, or runoff. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the United States. View "United States v. Alabama" on Justia Law

This appeal stemmed from five putative class actions filed against Wells Fargo and its predecessor, Wachovia Bank. At issue was whether Wells Fargo's waiver of its right to compel arbitration of the named plaintiffs' claims should be extended to preclude Wells Fargo from compelling arbitration of the unnamed putative class members' claims. The court concluded that because a class including the unnamed putative class members had not been certified, Article III's jurisdictional limitations precluded the district court from entertaining Wells Fargo's conditional motions to dismiss those members' claims as subject to arbitration; contrary to the position they take in this appeal, the named plaintiffs lack Article III standing to seek the court's affirmance of the district court's provision holding that if a class is certified, Wells Fargo will be estopped to assert its contractual rights to arbitration; and, therefore, the court vacated and remanded for further proceedings. View "Spears-Haymond v. Wells Fargo Bank" on Justia Law