CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
TYRONE DEXTER CHRISTIAN,
Defendant-Appellant.
   No. 17-1799
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Michigan at Grand Rapids.
No. 1:15-cr-00172-1—Robert J. Jonker, Chief District Judge.
Argued: March 9, 2018
Decided and Filed: June 26, 2018
Before: GILMAN, ROGERS, and STRANCH, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

RONALD LEE GILMAN, Circuit Judge. Tyrone Christian was convicted by a jury for (1) possessing a controlled substance with the intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1); (2) being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1); and (3) possessing a firearm in furtherance of a drug-trafficking crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(i). Before trial, Christian sought to suppress evidence obtained via a search warrant that he argued was not supported by probable cause. He also challenged the admission at trial of a recorded telephone call between two other individuals on the grounds that it was inadmissible hearsay. The district court denied the motion to suppress and admitted the recording of the call.

Christian renews both challenges on appeal. For the reasons set forth below, we REVERSE the judgment of the district court and REMAND the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.



CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
CHAROLETTE DIANA WINKLER, Administratrix of the Estate of Brandon Clint Hacker, Deceased,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
MADISON COUNTY, KENTUCKY; DOUG THOMAS, individually; ADVANCED CORRECTIONAL HEALTHCARE; NADIR H. AL-SHAMI, M.D., individually; LAYLA TROUTMAN, ARNP, individually; ARLENE JOHNSON, LPN, individually; TOM JONES, individually; CORY DUNNING, individually; J. J. LAGRANGE, individually; KEITH TRICKLER, individually; WHITNEY BRATCHER, individually,
Defendants-Appellees.
   No. 17-6073
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Kentucky at Lexington.
No. 5:15-cv-00045—Karen K. Caldwell, Chief District Judge.
Argued: April 25, 2018
Decided and Filed: June 26, 2018
Before: GILMAN, COOK, and GRIFFIN, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

RONALD LEE GILMAN, Circuit Judge. The tragic events in this case occurred during Brandon Clint Hacker’s five-day pretrial detention at the Madison County Detention Center. Hacker arrived at the Detention Center on Wednesday, April 30, 2014, after he was arrested by local law enforcement for failure to appear at a child-support hearing. He died of a perforated duodenal ulcer five days later on Monday, May 5, 2014.

Charolette Diana Winkler, Hacker’s mother and the Administrator of his estate, brought suit against Madison County and the Detention Center’s contract medical provider, Advanced Correctional Healthcare, Inc. (Healthcare), as well as against jail personnel and members of Healthcare’s medical staff. She alleged several state-law tort claims in addition to a claim that the defendants violated Hacker’s constitutional right to adequate medical care.

With regard to the constitutional claim, the district court granted summary judgment in favor of all the defendants, concluding that the record would not support a jury finding that any of them were deliberately indifferent to Hacker’s serious medical needs. It then declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims and dismissed those claims without prejudice. Winkler appeals the grant of summary judgment. For the reasons set forth below, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.



CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
JOSEPH HENDRIX,
Petitioner-Appellee/Cross-Appellant,
v.
CARMEN PALMER, Warden,
Respondent-Appellant/Cross-Appellee.
   Nos. 16-2279/2310
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit.
No. 2:11-cv-14659—Avern Cohn, District Judge.
Argued: April 25, 2018
Decided and Filed: June 26, 2018
Before: GILMAN, COOK, and GRIFFIN, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

RONALD LEE GILMAN, Circuit Judge. Joseph Hendrix is currently serving a life sentence imposed by a Michigan state court following his conviction for felony murder, carjacking, and unlawfully driving away a motor vehicle. The district court conditionally granted Hendrix’s application for a writ of habeas corpus brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Warden Carmen Palmer (the State) appeals the issuance of the writ, and Hendrix cross-appeals the denial of relief on several alternative claims.

At trial, the State presented evidence that Hendrix committed a carjacking that resulted in a woman’s death. The evidence included statements that Hendrix made to the police after being reinterrogated following the invocation of his right to counsel—statements that the State now concedes were inadmissible under Supreme Court precedent. Hendrix’s trial counsel failed to challenge the admissibility of these statements, however, and they became central to the State’s case.

On direct appeal in the Michigan courts, Hendrix challenged the admission of these statements as violating his Fifth Amendment rights under Miranda and its progeny. He also argued that his counsel’s failure to challenge the statements’ admission violated his Sixth Amendment right to the effective assistance of counsel. The State opposed Hendrix’s claims on the theory that its use of the statements was proper. Michigan’s courts uniformly denied Hendrix relief.

Hendrix then brought this federal habeas action. After the district court ordered oral argument on Hendrix’s Fifth Amendment claim, the State changed its position, conceding for the first time that Hendrix’s statements were admitted erroneously, but now arguing that the error was harmless. The district court granted habeas relief on Hendrix’s Fifth and Sixth Amendment claims, but denied relief on his other claims. Hendrix and the State both appealed.

For the reasons set forth below, we (1) AFFIRM the judgment of the district court granting Hendrix habeas relief based on his Fifth and Sixth Amendment claims; (2) REVERSE the district court’s denial of Hendrix’s Doyle claim; and (3) AFFIRM the holding of the district court that the evidence was sufficient to support Hendrix’s conviction. Hendrix is therefore entitled to the habeas relief granted by the district court, but the State is entitled to retry him if it so desires, subject to the time constraint imposed by the district court. The remaining issues raised by Hendrix are moot, and we do not consider them.