Swear on the Stand

The Duty of Protection in Federal Tort Supervision

This episode details a decision by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals regarding a lawsuit filed by Brittany Morris against the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act. Morris sued for negligence after a federal probation officer promised to protect her from her violent ex-boyfriend but failed to expedite an arrest warrant, resulting in an attack that left Morris a quadriplegic. While a lower court initially dismissed the case by citing a legal exception for misrepresentations, the appellate court reversed this ruling. The judges determined that the officer’s failure to perform the operational task of securing the warrant was a distinct act of negligence not shielded by government immunity. Consequently, the court ruled that the lawsuit could proceed, emphasizing that the failure to act after promising safety was not a protected discretionary policy decision.

Reinstating the Indictment: United States v. Sade Kuyoro

This episode from the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals details the reversal of a lower court's decision to dismiss fraud charges against Sade Kuyoro. The defendant was originally accused of disaster relief fraud involving Hurricane Harvey funds, but the district court dismissed the indictment after the government failed to timely disclose recoupment letters and details regarding a property inspector. However, the appellate court determined that these late disclosures did not constitute Brady violations because the defendant was not unfairly prejudiced and could have discovered the information through reasonable diligence. The ruling emphasizes that dismissing an indictment is an extreme sanction that was not warranted here, especially since the trial judge found no malicious intent by prosecutors. Consequently, the appellate court ordered the reinstatement of the indictment to allow the criminal case to proceed.

International Custody Dispute: Moreau v. White Hague Convention Appeal

This episode from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit addresses a complex international child custody battle under the Hague Convention. The court affirms a district court’s order to return two children to Canada, determining that their long-term residence there established it as their habitual residence despite the mother’s earlier claims that the move was temporary. While the court acknowledges the mother's inconsistent litigation tactics, it concludes that the father wrongfully retained the children in Texas in violation of Canadian custody rights. However, the appellate court vacates a preliminary injunction that attempted to bar Texas judges from hearing the case, citing principles of international comity. A dissenting opinion argues that the mother's deceptive conduct should have triggered judicial estoppel to prevent her from shifting the legal venue to Canada.

Arzu v. American Airlines: The AED Malfunction Appeal

This episode from the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals addresses a lawsuit against American Airlines following the tragic death of a teenager during an international flight. The plaintiff sought to hold the airline liable under the Montreal Convention, arguing that the crew's ineffective medical response and a malfunctioning defibrillator (AED) constituted a compensable "accident." The court affirmed that a poor medical response or a deviation from internal policy does not qualify as an accident under international treaty standards. However, the judges reversed the lower court's ruling regarding the AED failure, finding that a non-functional device would violate FAA regulations and could be seen as an unusual event. Consequently, the court allowed the claims specifically related to the defibrillator malfunction to proceed to trial while dismissing the breach of contract and general negligence theories.

Adjudication of the Atkins Intellectual Disability Claim of Edward Busby

This episode discusses a judicial order and subsequent opinions from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit regarding Edward Lee Busby’s stay of execution. The court issued a temporary stay pending a Supreme Court decision in Hamm v. Smith, which is expected to clarify how multiple IQ scores and intellectual disability should be evaluated in capital cases. Judge Higginson argues that a pause is necessary to ensure the correct constitutional standards are applied, noting that both parties previously agreed Busby was disabled. In contrast, Judge Richman dissents, asserting that the state court's factual findings—which rejected Busby’s disability claim despite expert testimony—should be given legal deference. Judge Graves also dissents, emphasizing that every medical expert in the case identified Busby as intellectually disabled, making his execution a violation of the Eighth Amendment. Ultimately, the case highlights a sharp judicial divide over the weight of expert medical consensus versus trial court recollections in death penalty appeals.