Evaluate police shootings and clarify the harmless error rules


Petition this week

This week, we focused on the request for the Supreme Court to consider how the Court of Appeal applies the “harmless error” rule in criminal cases and whether the use of force by the police would violate the Fourth Amendment request, including: in isolation, this is reasonable , But the necessity of using force is caused by the officers’ own deliberate or reckless behavior.

Three months ago at Torres v Madrid, The Supreme Court ruled that even if the suspect did not yield and was not subdued, the use of force by the police in order to restrict was “detained” for the purpose of the Fourth Amendment. Tahlequah, Oklahoma v. Bond Raise another Fourth Amendment issue regarding the use of police forces. It asks the judge to clarify whether reasonable force can still violate the Fourth Amendment if officials deliberately or recklessly create a situation that requires the use of force.

In August 2016, the police received a family harassment call and ran into Dominic Rollice, who was drunk and wielding a hammer, in the garage of his ex-wife. After the police repeatedly ordered Roris to put down the hammer, Roris raised it above his head. In response, the police fired several shots, killing Rollis. The Rolis estate administrator filed a lawsuit, accusing it of excessive use of force in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The district court issued a summary judgment on these officials; however, the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the original judgment, arguing that the overall situation analysis of the 10th Circuit requires asking “whether officials handle the situation in a way they know or should know will lead to an escalation “Danger. The court explained that even if viewed individually, the shooting is objectively reasonable under the Fourth Amendment, but such a ruling may make the police officer liable for the shooting of the suspect.

four years ago, In another case of reasonable force in the Fourth Amendment, the Supreme Court did not resolve the issue of whether the police officer’s behavior before seizure should be used to assess the rationality of the police officer’s behavior. The circuit still has differences on this issue.in Talqua, Officials are now asking the court to resolve the circuit conflict and reject the overall condition test of the 10th circuit. Or, they ask the court to accept the case and rule that they are entitled to conditional immunity.

Next, in Pang v. U.S., Dr. David Pon, an ophthalmologist, has been criminally accused of defrauding health insurance by misdiagnosing patients and charging for unprovided treatment. During the trial, just before the end of the evidence, the government provided testimony that Pon had fraudulently charged a patient for 52 operations. The trial judge allowed Pon to provide explanations for three of the procedures, but prevented him from testifying on the other 49 procedures, even though Pon was prepared to tell the jury that all procedures were reasonable. Pang was later convicted and sentenced to 10 years in prison.

On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit upheld the conviction under the “harmless error” rule. The 11th Circuit assumed that the trial judge mistakenly refused to allow Pon to respond to the government’s evidence, but the court concluded that the error was harmless given the “overwhelming guilty evidence” provided by the government in the trial. Pang believes that the appellate court that applies the innocuous error rule must consider the defense’s evidence and the potential impact of the error on the jury’s view of the defense, not just the amount of government evidence. His petition claims that the circuit court has “difficult differences” in the correct application of the innocuous error rule, and his petition requires judges to weigh.

These and others Petition this week as follows:

Tahlequah, Oklahoma v. Bond
20-1668
problem: (1) If the officer recklessly or deliberately creates the need to use force, whether the use of force is reasonable at the time of use is still in violation of the Fourth Amendment; (2) Whether it is clearly stipulated that the The advance of a drunk who wields a deadly weapon is a “reckless” behavior, which will lead to any subsequent use of deadly force in response to a threat to the officer’s safety is unconstitutional.

Public Watchdogs v. Southern California Edison Company
20-1676
problem: Whether Hobbes Act Deprive federal district courts of subject-matter jurisdiction over state laws and Price-Anderson Act Claims made by private actors against license holders of the Private Nuclear Regulatory Commission on the grounds that such claims are “attached or incidental” to the final NRC order.

Simmons v. United States
20-1704
problem: When the petitioner explained how government obstacles “prevented” him from submitting the application in time, but did not specifically allege how he discovered and tried to remedy the obstacle, whether the court can immediately dismiss the habeas corpus request for failing to fully claim that there is a causal relationship.

Pang v. U.S.
20-1709
problem: Whether the appellate court reviewing the cold criminal trial records can determine that the error in the trial is harmless by applying the “overwhelming guilty evidence” test, which only considers the potential impact of the error on the government case, not the potential impact on the defense .



Source link