Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

‘Judge shopping’ policy prompts pushback

WASHINGTON — Senate Republicans took aim Thursday at a new federal courts policy trying to curb "judge shopping," a practice that gained national attention in a major abortion medication case. Minority Leader Mitch McConnell spoke out against it on the Senate floor and joined with two other GOP senators to send letters to a dozen chief judges around the country suggesting they don't have to follow it. The courts' policy calls for cases with national implications to get random judge assignments, even in smaller divisions where all cases filed locally go before a single judge. In those single-judge divisions, critics say private or state attorneys can essentially pick which judge will hear their case, including suits that can affect the whole country. Interest groups of all kinds have long tried to file lawsuits before judges they see as friendly to their causes, but the practice got more attention after an unprecedented ruling halting approval of abortion medication. That case was filed in Amarillo, Texas, where it was all but certain to go before a judge appointed by former President Donald Trump who is a former attorney for a religious-liberty legal group that championed conservative causes. The Supreme Court eventually put the ruling on hold and is hearing arguments on it later this month. Cases seeking national injunctions have been on the rise in recent years, and Senate Republicans have sought to pare back that practice, McConnell said. But said he called the court's new approach an "unforced error." "I hope they will reconsider. And I hope district courts throughout the country will instead weigh what is best for their jurisdictions, not half-baked 'guidance' that just does Washington Democrats' bidding," he said. The policy was adopted by U.S. Judicial Conference, the governing body for federal courts. It is made up of 26 judges, 15 of whom were appointed by Republican presidents, and is presided over by Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts. It was announced by Judge Jeff Sutton, who serves on the Cincinnati-based 6th Circuit Court of Appeals and serves as chair of the serves as chair of the conference's executive committee. Sutton was appointed by President George W. Bush and clerked for late Justice Antonin Scalia. Republican Sen. John Cornyn of Texas and Thom Tillis of North Carolina joined McConnell in letters to chief justices in affected areas, saying the law allows district courts to set their own rules. Democrats, including Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois, have applauded the policy change, with Schumer saying it would "go a long way to restoring public confidence in judicial rulings."

Ex-officer pleads guilty in urine-licking incident

JACKSON, Miss. — A former Mississippi police officer pleaded guilty Thursday to a federal misdemeanor charge after authorities said he forced a man he had arrested to lick urine off the floor of a jail cell. Michael Christian Green, 26, lost his job as a Pearl Police Department patrol officer in late December, four days after security cameras showed the violent encounter in Pearl, a suburb of the capital city of Jackson. Green — who has a large cross tattooed on one arm and the word "Blessed" tattooed on the other — stood calmly before a federal magistrate judge Thursday and did not dispute any of the accusations read aloud by a federal prosecutor. When Judge Andrew Harris asked how Green was pleading on the charge of deprivation of civil rights, he responded: "Guilty, sir." Earlier Thursday, Pearl Mayor Jake Windham held a news conference and condemned Green's brutality against a person in detention. "I don't understand how you treat someone like that," Windham said. Although court documents did not mention race, Green is white and a Pearl spokesperson said the man he arrested is Latino. A charging document was issued March 4 and unsealed Wednesday. It says Green arrested the man Dec. 23 after a disturbance at a store in Pearl. Security footage in the police department showed that once the man was in a holding cell, he knocked on the cell door and tried to tell Green that he needed to urinate, according to the court document. After waiting for some time, the man went to the back of the cell and urinated in a corner, the document said. The man who was arrested is identified in the court document only by his initials, B.E. The security camera footage showed Green telling B.E. that he would beat him with a phone. "You're fixin' to go in there and you're going to lick that p--- up," Green said, according to the court document. "Do you understand me?" Green took the man back into the cell and told him to get on the ground and "suck it up," then used his phone to take videos of B.E. while the man got on the ground and licked his own urine, the document said. After the man gagged multiple times, Green told him, “Don’t spit it out," according to the document. "Green did not have a government interest or law enforcement purpose in ordering B.E. to lick his urine," the federal charging document said. The city of Pearl said in a statement Thursday that officials learned about the "disturbing event" during Christmas weekend and opened an investigation, using an independent attorney. Windham said Green resigned Dec. 27. "The proper thing to do was to take the gentleman to the restroom and to not do anything of this magnitude and violate his civil rights," Windham said. A federal prosecutor said the victim was not in court Thursday, although authorities reached out to see if he wanted to attend Green's hearing. Green remains free on bond until his May 24 sentencing. He faces up to one year in prison and a $10,000 fine. Harris ordered Green to surrender his Mississippi law enforcement certification. Windham said Green had worked for the Pearl Police Department for about six months after having worked at other law enforcement agencies in the Jackson area. It's rare for law enforcement officers in Mississippi to be charged with brutality. Windham said Thursday that the Pearl Police Department handled its investigation quickly.

City pays wrongfully imprisoned man 8-figure settlement; $25 million settlement

Action: Civil rights violation Injuries alleged: Wrongful conviction and resulting imprisonment for more than 44 years and infliction of emotional harm on plaintiff Case name: Long v. City of Concord, et al Court/case no.: Eastern District of North Carolina / 5:21-CV-201-D Judge: James C. Dever III Mediator: Bill Brazile Amount: $25 million Date: Jan. 9, 2024 Attorneys: Chris Olson of Olson Law, Raleigh, and David Rudolf and Sonya Pfeiffer of Pfeiffer Rudolf, Charlotte (for the plaintiff) Plaintiff, a Black man then 20 years old, was wrongfully convicted in 1976 for the rape of a white widow at her home in Concord. No physical evidence linked him to the crime. The case was built upon the purported identification of plaintiff after a contrived and highly suggestive courtroom ID procedure. Substantial exculpatory evidence was collected but unlawfully concealed by investigators. Evidence of that misconduct by law enforcement would trickle out over the next 40 years, leading to plaintiff's exoneration in August 2020 and him being granted a pardon of innocence in December 2020. A lawsuit was filed in May 2021 against the city of Concord and several of its police officers. After the lawsuit was filed, plaintiff’s counsel received documents for the first time indicating that State Bureau of Investigation personnel also were involved in the investigation.  An amended complaint naming SBI personnel as defendants was filed in June 2021. Claims against the SBI defendants were resolved for $3 million in March 2023. The remaining claims against Concord and its police defendants were settled for $22 million in January 2024. In addition to the monetary damage, the city agreed to issue a formal apology to plaintiff and his family for the wrongs done to them.

Diagnostic error, treatment delay result in amputation; $2 million settlement

Action: Medical malpractice Injuries alleged: Amputation of left arm below elbow Case name: Christy Absher Johnson v. Direct Radiology LLC and Daniel Mark Baker, M.D. Court/case no.: Wilkes County Superior Court / 21 CVS 454 Mediator: Ray Owens Amount: $2 million Date: Sept. 9, 2023 Attorneys: John Chilson, John Kenneth Moser and Zachary Harris of Comerford Chilson & Moser, Winston-Salem (for the plaintiff)   The plaintiff visited the emergency department at Iredell Memorial Hospital with pain and numbness in her left arm. Her emergency physician suspected a potential blood clot and ordered ultrasound images of her left arm, which were transmitted to Direct Radiology, a teleradiology company in Washington state, for review. Direct Radiology assigned the radiology study to Daniel Baker, M.D., a radiologist in Ohio. Baker spent less than two minutes reviewing the images before sending a final report that indicated the study was normal. The emergency room physician relied upon Baker's report and discharged plaintiff. Six days later, plaintiff was referred back to the emergency department with worsening pain. She was diagnosed with a blood clot in her left arm that was causing her symptoms. Because of the six-day delay in diagnosis and treatment, plaintiff's arm was amputated below the elbow. The parties agreed that Baker's final report was incorrect because it showed obvious evidence of a developing blood clot, and plaintiff's experts testified that Baker was negligent. Defendants argued that Baker never intended to send a final report, might have pressed the wrong button on his computer and that the delay in diagnosis and treatment was not the cause of plaintiff's amputation. North Carolina law requires a doctor to confirm that the contents of a medical record entry are correct before affixing his or her electronic signature to it. Plaintiff would not agree to a confidential settlement because she wants others to know about the dangers of teleradiology.