National Roundup

Connecticut
Federal inmates settle lawsuit over coronavirus precautions
HARTFORD, Conn. (AP) — Federal inmates in Connecticut have agreed to settle a class-action lawsuit accusing prison officials of not doing enough to protect them from the coronavirus, including transferring vulnerable prisoners to home confinement.

Notice of the agreement involving inmates at the Federal Correctional Institution in Danbury was filed in U.S. District Court in Hartford on Monday and must be approved by a judge.

The settlement calls for the Bureau of Prisons to promptly identify inmates who are medically vulnerable to the coronavirus and release them to home confinement, said David Golub, a lawyer for the prisoners, who also were represented by the Quinnipiac and Yale law schools.

The lawsuit was filed in April, at the height of the pandemic in Connecticut, by four inmates, including three women and a man, claiming prison officials were not taking seriously a directive by Attorney General William Bar to maximize transfers to home confinement. The suit sought to protect all medically vulnerable inmates.

Since the pandemic began, 89 inmates and 61 staff at Danbury have recovered from the virus, and one inmate died, according to the Bureau of Prisons. As of Tuesday, one staff member was infected, but no inmates were infected. The prison houses about 1,000 inmates.

“We are gravely concerned about the well-being of people incarcerated at FCI Danbury during this pandemic,” said Quinnipiac law professor Sarah Russell, who also represented the inmates. “We are hopeful that the process set forth in the agreement will mean more medically vulnerable people will soon be safely home with their families.”

In May, U.S. District Judge Michael Shea ruled prison officials were not moving fast enough to protect inmates and ordered them to implement a process to move as many prisoners as possible to home confinement.

About 400 prisoners in Danbury have been identified as medically vulnerable as part of that process, including many who have since been released to home confinement or community placement, Russell said.

In a statement, Connecticut U.S. Attorney John Durham commended the Bureau of Prisons and Danbury prison staff for containing the outbreak and said the settlement preserves coronavirus protections already in place at the prison.

Last week, a federal judge approved a settlement of a similar lawsuit filed by inmates in Connecticut state prisons.

Maryland
Judges should avoid Black Lives Matter rallies, ethics panel says
BALTIMORE (BridgeTower Media Newswires) — Maryland judges should not participate in Black Lives Matter rallies because their clarion call for justice system reform and harsh criticism of law enforcement would bring the jurists’ impartiality into question when they return to the courtroom, the state’s Judicial Ethics Committee concluded in a published opinion issued Wednesday.

Specifically, participation in the events would violate rules of the Maryland Code of Judicial Conduct that require judges to “act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the independence, integrity and impartiality of the judiciary” and to “maintain the dignity of judicial office at all times, and avoid both impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in their professional and personal lives,” the committee added.

Spurred by the May 25 death of a Black man at the knee of a Minneapolis police officer, Black Lives Matter rallies have become regular events in Baltimore and other major U.S. cities and towns. The largely peaceful protests involve the chanting of slogans critical of the justice system, such as “No Justice, No Peace,” and signs pledging that George Floyd did not die in vain by expanding on his final words, “We Can’t Breathe.”

The ethics committee cited these messages in concluding that “a depiction of a judge, on social media or otherwise, at an event with signs such as these, could lead a reasonable person to question the judge’s impartiality in cases involving the police. And the judge, particularly in a large gathering, generally would not have knowledge of, or the ability to control, the signs that are displayed by others.”

The committee issued its decision in response to an unnamed individual’s question regarding whether a judge may participate in Black Lives Matter protests, marches, and rallies the focus “on overall racial inequality (locally and globally), as well as police brutality, justice system reform, voting rights, and economic equality.”

In finding such participation inappropriate, the panel examined judicial ethics opinions in Arizona, Connecticut, Illinois, Massachusetts and New York. The rallies at issue included women’s rights marches and salutes to science amid the debate over global warming.

The states’ opinions uniformly held that participation in rallies “could undermine public confidence in the independence and impartiality of the judiciary,” the Maryland panel stated.

“Based on the general facts of this request (for an opinion), including the description of a march, protest, or rally associated with the Black Lives Matter movement as focusing on law enforcement and perceived problems with the justice system, as well as the committee’s general knowledge that these events may include signs containing messages that could cause a reasonable person to question the judge’s impartiality, we conclude that a judge should not participate in this type of event,” the committee stated in its five-page opinion.

Maryland Court of Special Appeals Judge Kathryn Grill Graeff chairs the committee. The usually 13-member panel has one vacant position, reserved for an individual who is neither a lawyer nor employed by the Maryland Judiciary.

Louisiana
Appeals court won’t rehear majority Black judgeship case
NEW ORLEANS (AP) — A federal appeals court on Tuesday turned down a request that it reconsider its decision rejecting creation of a majority Black judicial district in south Louisiana.

The case deals with the method of electing judges in coastal Terrebonne Parish.

In 2017, U.S. District Judge James Brady ruled that the “at-large” system of electing judges in parish-wide elections was unconstitutional.

But, last month, three judges on the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously ruled that there was “weak evidence” of discriminatory dilution of Black votes in the majority white parish.

On Tuesday, the appeals court rejected a request for a rehearing by the full 17-judge court. The court’s filing said none of the court’s active judges requested a vote on a rehearing.