Should Anyone Care that Sexual Assault is “Out of Character” for Biden?

SHERRY F. COLB

Cornell law professor Sherry F. Colb considers what people mean when they say that a sexual assault allegation seems “out of character” for a particular person and explains why that reasoning is logically flawed. Focusing on differences between how people behave publicly and privately, Colb argues that the lack of an observed pattern of sexual misconduct is not evidence that a person did not engage in sexual misconduct on a specific occasion.

Read More

Smith v. Titus

Docket: 18-2915

Opinion Date: May 5, 2020

Judge: Steven M. Colloton

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

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of habeas relief to petitioner based on his claim that the trial court violated his Sixth Amendment right to a public trial when it briefly closed the courtroom to spectators. The district court denied relief based on the ground that the Minnesota Supreme Court’s decision was neither contrary to, nor an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law. The court agreed and held that it was not objectively unreasonable for the Minnesota Supreme Court to deem it constitutional under the Sixth Amendment for the trial court to explain the parameters of an earlier public order on evidentiary issues in a brief nonpublic proceeding before the jury was sworn.

United States v. Haynes

Docket: 19-1607

Opinion Date: May 5, 2020

Judge: Raymond W. Gruender

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence for being a felon in possession of a firearm. The court held that the government did not violate the Speedy Trial Act, and defendant failed to offer any evidence showing that Iowa and federal prosecutors colluded. Furthermore, the district court did not abuse its discretion by failing to hold an evidentiary hearing regarding the existence of collusion. The court also held that the district court did not err in denying the motion to suppress where defendant was not unlawfully seized. In this case, prior to producing the marijuana cigarette, the officer did not ask defendant any questions but merely ordered him off the bus, particularly as the smell of marijuana alerted the officer that evidence of a more serious crime than failure to use a turn signal might be uncovered during the stop. Finally, the court held that defendant was not unlawfully searched when the officer conducted a pat-down search incident to arrest; the evidence was sufficient to support defendant's conviction; defendant's Rehaif claim failed because there was sufficient evidence that he knew of his prohibited status; and defendant's sentence was not substantively unreasonable nor an abuse of the district court's discretion.

United States v. Wright

Docket: 19-1081

Opinion Date: May 5, 2020

Judge: Erickson

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's restitution order and certain special conditions of defendant's supervised release imposed after he pleaded guilty to sex trafficking of a child. The court found no error in the district court's restitution amount of $20,000, holding that the evidence supported the amount in light of the aggregate harm to the victim. The court also held that the special conditions -- including a requirement that defendant participate in sex offender treatment including psychological testing and polygraph examinations, a prohibition against contact with any minors without pre-approval, and a requirement that defendant seek prior approval before using temporary commercial lodging, such as a hotel or motel -- where reasonably related to both the offense of conviction and to defendant's history of sexual contact with minor females.

Thompson v. Kanabec County

Dockets: 19-1456, 19-1988

Opinion Date: May 5, 2020

Judge: Erickson

Areas of Law: Family Law, Labor & Employment Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the County on plaintiff's claim of interference with her rights under the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) and retaliation against her for asserting those rights. Plaintiff's claims arose when she was put on administrative leave following an investigation into her involvement in her husband's sexual abuse of their children. The court held that plaintiff failed to show any prejudice from the County's delay in acting on her FMLA request or its failure to give her notice of her FMLA rights. The court rejected the FMLA interference claim, holding that plaintiff was neither asked to nor required to complete work-related tasks while on leave. Rather, the activities plaintiff was asked to do related to the underlying child-protection investigation, her FMLA request, and her employment status. The court also held that the County was entitled to summary judgment on plaintiff's discrimination claim where the undisputed sequence of events does not demonstrate a causal link between her FMLA request and the Board's decision to proceed with a meeting regarding whether to terminate her employment. In this case, the Board's actions were based on the maltreatment determination. Finally, the court held that the district court did not err in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims, and the district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding costs to the County.