Latest 4 Cases: Dunn v. Jess (Civil Rights), United States v. McDonaldes (Criminal Law), Zoch v. Saul (Government & Administrative Law)

In (Trial) Courts (Especially) We Trust

VIKRAM DAVID AMAR, JASON MAZZONE

Illinois law dean Vikram David Amar and professor Jason Mazzone describe the increasing importance of courts and lawyers in safeguarding and reinforcing the role of factual truths in our democracy. Dean Amar and Professor Mazzone point out that lawyers and judges are steeped in factual investigation and factual determination, and they call upon legal educators (like themselves) to continue instilling in students the commitment to analytical reasoning based in factual evidence, and to absolutely reject the notion that factual truth is just in the mind of the beholder.

Read More

The Rhetoric About a “Decline” in Religious Liberty Is Good News for Americans

MARCI A. HAMILTON

Marci A. Hamilton, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania and one of the country’s leading church-state scholars, explains why the rhetoric about a “decline” in religious liberty actually signals a decline in religious triumphalism, and is a good thing. Professor Hamilton describes how religious actors wield the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) not as a shield, but as a sword to destroy the lives of fellow Americans.

Read More

Dunn v. Jess

Docket: 20-1168

Opinion Date: November 24, 2020

Judge: St. Eve

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

Dunn slapped Schuckman in a bar's parking lot, causing him to fall to the ground. Witnesses reported seeing Schuckman upright and apparently unharmed afterward. Hours later, Schuckman was found dead on the bar’s patio. Dunn and Crochet were charged with felony murder, battery, and theft from a corpse. Dunn’s counsel consulted with a forensic pathologist. After viewing the medical examiner’s report, the pathologist believed that Schuckman died immediately from his head injuries—suggesting that Dunn’s slap could not have caused his death. Before trial, defense counsel repeatedly, erroneously, stated that the medical examiner had concluded that Schuckman died immediately from a fatal blow and would testify to that at trial. The medical examiner’s report did not contain such conclusions and counsel never confirmed them. The prosecutor informed Dunn’s counsel that Crochet had retained experts, who were going to produce reports that bolstered Dunn’s no-causation defense. The prosecution considered the reports exculpatory. Dunn’s counsel did not ask for a continuance or attempt to view the reports. At trial, defense counsel did not call his forensic pathologist as a witness. The medical examiner testified that there was no reason to think that Schuckman would have died immediately from the fatal head injury, and it would have been possible for Schuckman to move after sustaining this injury. The Seventh Circuit upheld an order granting federal habeas relief. Dunn’s trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to investigate and offer evidence to support a no-causation defense and Dunn was prejudiced by that deficient performance.

United States v. McDonaldes

Docket: 19-3222

Opinion Date: November 24, 2020

Judge: St. Eve

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

McDonald pleaded guilty to transporting child pornography, 18 U.S.C. 2252A(a)(1). He admitted to using his computer to send two emails with video attachments containing pornography depicting children as young as five and portraying “sadistic and masochistic conduct” and admitted to using a filesharing website to download child pornography. His hard drive contained approximately 5,000 images and 890 videos of child pornography. His guidelines range was 151-188 months’ imprisonment. The PSR recommended a reduction of three levels for acceptance of responsibility, even though McDonald insisted that he received the emails unintentionally and “wasn’t sure” if the content was illegal. McDonald sought a statutory minimum sentence of five years, arguing “[a]ny lengthy sentence may be a death sentence” because of his age (62-63), his type I diabetes, and two blocked arteries near his heart. The Seventh Circuit affirmed a 156-month sentence as being “in most part and significant part” based on the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors, including the guidelines range. The court acknowledged McDonald’s medical reports and considered his age and medical conditions and how McDonald had served his family and community by caring for his parents and by rescuing animals. The court concluded that aggravating factors countervailed because McDonald possessed and distributed large amounts of child pornography, there were “significant” reasons to believe that McDonald would re-offend, McDonald had photographed neighborhood children, and he had wavered in accepting responsibility.

Zoch v. Saul

Docket: 20-1166

Opinion Date: November 24, 2020

Judge: Per Curiam

Areas of Law: Government & Administrative Law, Health Law, Public Benefits

Alleging debilitating pain in her back, legs, and hands, Zoch sought disability insurance benefits, 42 U.S.C. 413, 423. An ALJ denied the application, finding that, based on the opinions of three of her four treating physicians, a consulting physician, and the objective medical evidence, she could perform sedentary work. The district court and Seventh Circuit affirmed, rejecting Zoch’s arguments that the ALJ improperly discounted her assertions and an opinion by a physician who relied on those assertions. Substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s decision. Zoch’s testimony of incapacitating pain conflicted with the objective medical evidence, including normal test results: lumbar MRI, wrist x-rays, range of motion, straight-leg raising, strength in extremities, and pressure on her nerves. Zoch’s testimony that she usually walked with a cane conflicted with the doctors’ reports that at all but one appointment she walked normally. Zoch’s testimony that she could not raise her arms or bend over to dress conflicted with a doctor’s observation that Zoch could comfortably bend over to touch her fingertips to her knees. Zoch’s hearing testimony that she could not perform the usual activities of daily living was inconsistent with her assertions in her application.

Barrados-Zarate v. Barr

Docket: 20-1040

Opinion Date: November 24, 2020

Judge: Frank Hoover Easterbrook

Areas of Law: Immigration Law

In 2009, Barrados-Zarate, a citizen of Mexico, was charged as removable. He had been in the U.S. for more than a decade and applied for cancellation of removal, 8 U.S.C. 1229b(b)(1). He has two children who were born in the U.S., and contends that his “removal would result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship.” Barrados-Zarate asserted that, if he is removed, his partner (a Mexican citizen) and their children will accompany him but the rural area where he would settle has poor health care, deficient educational opportunities, fewer available jobs, and a high crime rate. The IJ denied relief. The BIA dismissed an appeal, explaining that the children will receive a free public education, do not appear to be in special need of medical care, and will have the support of Barrados-Zarate’s extended family. Barrados-Zarate sought remand to address the crime rate in Mexico. The Seventh Circuit denied relief, citing failure to exhaust administrative remedies with respect to the prevalence of crime or violence in Mexico or any of its localities. A court of appeals may not set aside an administrative decision that passes in silence a topic that the parties themselves have passed in silence. The court further noted that the statute requires “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” to U.S. citizens; a risk encountered by everyone who lives in Mexico cannot be “exceptional and extremely unusual.”