Another blockbuster August day today, with a big capital-habeas en banc ruling and three panel opinions. Over 300 pages of opinion today.
Dennis v. Secretary — capital habeas corpus — affirmance — Rendell
The en banc Third Circuit today affirmed habeas corpus relief for James Dennis, holding in a landmark habeas opinion that the prosecution suppressed evidence that effectively gutted its case and that the Pa. Supreme Court unreasonably applied Brady v. Maryland when it denied relief. The 2015 panel ruling (Fisher with Smith and Chagares) had ruled for the state.
Joining Rendell were McKee, Ambro, Fuentes, Greenaway, Vanaskie, Shwartz, and Krause, and by Jordan in part. McKee concurred “to underscore the problems inherent in eyewitness testimony and the inadequacies of our standard jury instructions relating to that evidence.” Jordan concurred in part and concurred in the judgment, noting:
Every judge of our en banc Court has now concluded that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s contrary determination was not only wrong, but so obviously wrong that it cannot pass muster even under AEDPA’s highly-deferential standard of review. In other words, it is the unanimous view of this Court that any fairminded jurist must disagree with the Dennis I court’s assessment of the materiality and favorability of the Cason receipt. Yet somehow a majority of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court endorsed Dennis’s conviction and death sentence. The lack of analytical rigor and attention to detail in that decision on direct appeal is all the more painful to contemplate because the proof against Dennis is far from overwhelming. He may be innocent.
Fisher dissented, joined by Smith, Chagares, and Hardiman, and Hardiman also authored a dissent that Smith and Fisher joined. Arguing counsel were Amy Rohe of Reisman Karron for Dennis and Ronald Eisenberg of the Philadelphia D.A.’s office for the state.
Watson v. Rozum — prisoner civil rights — reversal in part — McKee
A divided Third Circuit panel today ruled in favor of a prisoner alleging a First Amendment retaliation claim.
Joining McKee was Ambro; Ambro also concurred, explaining the court’s rejection of caselaw from the Fifth and Eighth Circuits and its disavowal of prior non-precedential circuit rulings. Hardiman dissented. Arguing counsel were Kemal Mericli of the Pa. A.G.’s office for the state and former Fisher clerk Ellen Mossman of Dechert for the prisoner.
NAACP v. City of Philadelphia — First Amendment — affirmance — Ambro
It’s unusual enough for the same panel to issue two precedential opinions on the same day, but it’s rare indeed for the same judge to dissent in both cases. But so it was here, where Hardiman again dissented from a McKee-Ambro majority. In this case, the majority affirmed a district court ruling that Philadelphia’s policy of banning non-commercial advertising at its airport violates the First Amendment.
Arguing counsel were Craig Gottlieb for the city and Fred Magaziner of Dechert (who clerked for Rosenn) for the challengers.
US v. Carter — criminal — affirmance — Shwartz
The Third Circuit affirmed a district court criminal sentence applying a sentencing enhancement for maintaining a stash house. The defendant had argued he did not maintain the stash house because he did not own or rent the house and did not pay for its operation from his own funds.
Joining Shwartz were Fuentes and Restrepo. The case was decided without oral argument.
Seems like Jordan is forgetting 4 of his colleagues when he talks about every judge of the en banc panel.
Every judge of the court agreed that the receipt was both favorable and material, as he says. The four dissenters just disagreed on the suppression prong of the Brady analysis by gap filling with the reasonable diligence theory. So what he said was actually correct, particularly when read in context.