IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA

Similar documents
CASE 0:18-cv JNE-SER Document 1 Filed 04/16/18 Page 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Test Bank for Criminal Evidence Principles and Cases 8th Edition by Thomas J. Gardner and Terry M. Anderson

Case 1:15-cv WJM-MJW Document 1 Filed 08/17/15 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON FOR THE COUNTY OF [COUNTY NAME]

Case 1:17-cv Document 1 Filed 12/01/17 Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII

Case 1:18-cv XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/01/2018 Page 1 of 17

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA. BETHANY V. BOWEN, ) CASE NO. 4: 07CV3221 Plaintiff, ) ) v. )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA. Plaintiff, Case No. CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Court Records Glossary

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

CRIMINAL LAW JURISDICTION, PROCEDURE, AND THE COURTS. February 2017

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA

Case 1:06-cv VM-HBP Document 1 Filed 07/10/06 Page 1 of 9

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE AND EVIDENCE ATTACHED ARE 11

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

American Government. Topic 8 Civil Liberties: Protecting Individual Rights

acquittal: Judgment that a criminal defendant has not been proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Case 2:06-cv FSH-PS Document 20 Filed 01/10/08 Page 1 of 7

Case: 1:11-cv Document #: 1 Filed: 03/23/11 Page 1 of 9 PageID #:1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA. Case No.

Fall, Criminal Litigation 9/4/17. Criminal Litigation: Arraignment to Appeal. How Do We Get A Case?

Case: 1:12-cv Document #: 171 Filed: 09/30/16 Page 1 of 7 PageID #:5200

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON. Plaintiff,

2:15-cv LJM-MJH Doc # 1 Filed 01/14/15 Pg 1 of 6 Pg ID 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SHERMAN DIVISION

Case 1:17-cv XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/28/2017 Page 1 of 15

INTRODUCTION. 1. This is an action, filed pursuant to U.S. Const. Amend. XIV, Title 42

Case: 1:13-cv Document #: 1 Filed: 08/13/13 Page 1 of 10 PageID #:1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA. Plaintiff, for its complaint, by and through its attorney, alleges that:

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND

3:18-cv SEM-TSH # 1 Page 1 of 14 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND. Defendant : COMPLAINT. Parties and Jurisdiction

Case 2:17-cv Document 1 Filed 01/28/17 Page 1 of 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE

Case: 1:17-cv Document #: 1 Filed: 04/11/17 Page 1 of 8 PageID #:1

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CARBON COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CRIMINAL DIVISION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

TITLE VI JUDICIAL REMEDIES CHAPTER 1 GENERAL PROVISIONS

Case 1:08-cv Document 1 Filed 10/07/2008 Page 1 of 8

Case 1:16-cv Document 1 Filed 06/20/16 Page 1 of 9 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED. It is better to allow 10 guilty men to go free than to punish a single innocent man.

Lennox S. Hinds, Esq. Stevens, Hinds & White, P.C. 42 Van Doren Avenue Somerset, NJ

House Substitute for SENATE BILL No. 101

TEXAS RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE PART V - RULES OF PRACTICE IN JUSTICE COURTS [RULES 523 to 591. Repealed effective August 31, 2013]

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON FOR LINN COUNTY

Courthouse News Service

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA

Case 1:15-cv KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/13/2015 Page 1 of 9

Case 5:15-cv SAC-KGS Document 1 Filed 08/06/15 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY CAMDEN VICINAGE

MINNESOTA JUDICIAL TRAINING UPDATE GRAND JURY PROCEEDINGS: EVERYTHING A JUDGE NEEDS TO KNOW - ALMOST

Criminal Case Study 1, Part 1

No. IN THE DONALD KARR, Petitioner, STATE OF INDIANA, Respondent. On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari To the Indiana Supreme Court

Case 4:15-cv Document 1 Filed 03/30/15 Page 1 of 5 PageID #: 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Assignment. Federal Question Jurisdiction. Text Problem Case: Louisville and Nashville Railroad v. Mottley

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

) CascNo.6O/V3?O APR ) $CLERK&I4ATER /) ) ) Comes now Plaintiff, Shayne Kyle Austin, by and through his counsel, Luke A.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Case 2:18-cv Document 1 Filed 12/21/18 Page 1 of 8

Case 3:10-cv ECR-RAM Document 1 Filed 07/13/10 Page 1 of 9

Name Class Period CIVIL LIBERTIES: FIRST AMENDMENT FREEDOMS. Describe the difference between civil liberties and civil rights.

MISSISSIPPI COURT OF APPEALS OPINIONS HAND DOWN DATE: 9/20/2016

COURT RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CHAPTER 12 TABLE OF CONTENTS

This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn. Stat. 480A.08, subd. 3 (2016).

Civil Liberties & the Rights of the Accused CIVIL RIGHTS AND CIVIL LIBERTIES

Case 2:16-cv Document 2 Filed 12/19/16 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA. Plaintiffs, JUDGE: Defendants.

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE STATE OF TENNESSEE V. WILLIAM JOSEPH TAYLOR

NC General Statutes - Chapter 15A Article 89 1

Case3:13-cv NC Document1 Filed12/09/13 Page1 of 18

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION. Hon.

Case 1:17-cv RDB Document 1 Filed 03/06/17 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND (NORTHERN DIVISION)

Courthouse News Service

Texas Rules of Civil Procedure Part V. When it is concerning matters of law, go first to the specific then to the general

Voting Rights Act of 1965

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON COMPLAINT

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

)(

~D la'ls DISTRIC;iO~e 2

CAUSE NO. PLAINTIFF S ORIGINAL PETITION FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT AND APPLICATION FOR UNOPPOSED EXPEDITED RELIEF

Case 1:11-cv JHM-HBB Document 1 Filed 12/12/11 Page 1 of 15 PageID #: 1

TEXAS CRIMINAL DEFENSE FORMS ANNOTATED

Ohio Bill of Rights. 02 Right to alter, reform, or abolish government, and repeal special privileges (1851)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO DIVISION. v. No. XX-XX-XXX PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

Case 2:16-cv DN Document 2 Filed 01/15/16 Page 1 of 30

Case 1:19-cv Document 1 Filed 01/09/19 Page 1 of 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Case 3:14-cv AA Document 1 Filed 06/02/14 Page 1 of 14 Page ID#: 1

Case: 2:18-cv ALM-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 08/06/18 Page: 1 of 8 PAGEID #: 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

Case 4:08-cv RCC Document 1 Filed 02/25/08 Page 1 of 16 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA TUCSON DIVISION

Title 15: COURT PROCEDURE -- CRIMINAL

MARK SILVER v. COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION (AC 39238)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS. Case No.

Transcription:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA BETHANY V. BOWEN, ) CASE NO. 4:CV 07- Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) COMPLAINT ) HON. JEFFRE CHEUVRONT, ) CIVIL ACTION Defendant, ) ) IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS ) JUSTICE OF THE DISTRICT COURT ) FOR THE STATE OF NEBRASKA. ) INTRODUCTION AND NATURE OF CONTROVERSY In accordance with 42 U.S.C. 1983 (amended Oct. 19, 1996 by Pub.L. 104-317, Title III, 309 ), 110 Stat. 3853), this is an action seeking declaratory relief regarding the constitutionality of an order rendered by a judicial officer for the State of Nebraska compelling a crime victim to use, and refrain from using, certain language in her testimony as a witness during a criminal trial. Despite the fact that this order encroaches on the Plaintiff s First and Fifth Amendment and other fundamental rights, and threatens the rights of all private persons, judicial review to determine whether this order violates federal constitutional principles is unavailable to the Plaintiff under Nebraska law. Guidance from this court will be beneficial to all state courts because, according to Joshua Marquis, District Attorney for Clatsop County, Oregon, who also serves as Vice President of the National District Attorneys Association, the practice of state court Page -1-

judges issuing orders restricting the language of victims and witnesses has increased substantially in recent years. It has not yet been reviewed for compliance with federal constitutional law. PARTIES 1. Plaintiff Bethany V. Bowen, formerly of Lincoln, Nebraska, resides at 7121 Rock Ridge Lane, Alexandria, VA, and is a citizen of the United States. 2. Defendant Jeffre Cheuvront is and was, at the time of the transactions and occurrences alleged, a judicial officer for the State of Nebraska subject to the duties and requirements imposed by the U.S. Constitution and applicable federal law. JURISDICTION 3. This action arises under the First, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution, and 42 U.S.C.A. 1983, wherein the Plaintiff, a citizen of the United States, alleges the Defendant violated her federal constitutional rights in transactions and occurrences taking place within the district of Nebraska. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF COUNT I. FREEDOM OF SPEECH 4. On or about November 2004, Pamir Safi was arrested and charged with sexual assault in violation of Nebraska criminal law. The prosecution arose out of an incident that occurred on or about October 31, 2004 in Lincoln, Nebraska. The state of Nebraska accused Safi of committing sexual assault against the Plaintiff in this matter, Bethany Bowen, then a senior at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. 5. Prior to the start of the first trial, Safi s counsel filed a motion to forbid the use of certain words during trial. Judge Jeffre Cheuvront, the judicial officer and defendant in Page -2-

this proceeding, allowed Safi s motion and issued an order on January 26, 2006 forbidding the Plaintiff and all witnesses to use certain words and phrases including rape, victim and sexual assault. The prosecutor opined that the court s ruling was unlawful but declined to file an interlocutory appeal after determining that he lacked procedural and substantive authority to seek judicial review. Thus the People, as represented by the prosecutor, have no access to review of this issue by the Nebraska courts. 6. Prior to taking testimony from the Plaintiff and all witnesses, Judge Cheuvront placed the Plaintiff and all witnesses under legal oath to testify fully, truthfully and accurately. The Plaintiff and other witnesses repeatedly and mistakenly referred to the forbidden terms. Safi s counsel objected and/or moved for a mistrial several times in response thereto. The jury was never apprised of the court s language order. 7. The first trial ended in a mistrial in November 2006 after the jury failed to reach a verdict. 8. Prior to the start of the second trial in July 2007, Safi s counsel again filed a motion to forbid use of certain words during trial. Judge Cheuvront allowed Safi s motion and issued an order forbidding all witnesses to use the words: rape, victim, assailant, sexual assault kit and sexual assault nurse examiner. Judge Cheuvront further ordered that the phrase sexual assault kit would be referred to as the sexual kit and the sexual assault nurse examiner would be referred to as a nurse with expertise in sexual examination. 9. Prior to the start of the second trial in July 2007, a prosecution motion to forbid use of the terms sex and intercourse was denied by Judge Cheuvront. Page -3-

10. Prior to the start of the second trial in July 2007, Judge Cheuvront issued a second order requiring witnesses to sign an acknowledgment form. This form obligated witnesses to acknowledge the court s language order described in paragraph 8 and outlined the potential for contempt sanctions and other punishment for noncompliant witnesses. 11. Plaintiff declined to sign said acknowledgment form and on July 9 2007, prior to the start of the second trial but after the start of jury selection, on July 11, 2007 Plaintiff filed a motion with Judge Cheuvront asking to be held in contempt for the purpose of facilitating an expedited appeal of the courts orders prior to trial. Under Nebraska law, an adjudication of contempt is the accepted prerequisite to appeal for private third parties aggrieved by court orders in criminal cases. Judge Cheuvront did not act on the Plaintiff s motion. 12. The following day, Plaintiff sought concomitant relief from the Nebraska Supreme Court via a Writ of Habeas Corpus. The writ was denied on without comment the next day thus precluding the Plaintiff s access to meaningful review of the merits in the Nebraska courts. Letter of denial entered on July 12, 2007. 13. On July 11 2007, Safi s counsel filed a mistrial motion with Judge Cheuvront in anticipation of the Plaintiff s noncompliance with the language order during trial. Judge Cheuvront scheduled a hearing on Safi s anticipatory mistrial motion and had Plaintiff appear before him later that same day to answer questions under oath regarding her potential noncompliance. Plaintiff testified that she understood the language order but could not promise to abide an order that effectively required her to testify using words that did not accurately describe her experience. Judge Cheuvront Page -4-

told the Plaintiff that the presumption of innocence trumped her free speech rights and that she could be incarcerated for as long as six months if she did not comply with his language order during trial. 14. On July 12 2007, before the completion of jury selection, Judge Cheuvront granted a mistrial. The order stated that a mistrial was necessary not based on the Plaintiff s anticipated noncompliance with the court s language order but because of pretrial publicity. Judge Cheuvront determined without a hearing that the Plaintiff was the cause of the publicity and the mistrial because she spoke publicly about her opposition to the court s language order and because she signed an on-line petition regarding the language order. 15. The prosecutor and defense counsel appeared in state court in August 23 2007 where it was revealed that the case will proceed to a third trial, venue will not be changed and that the defendant has waived his speedy trial rights. The next trial will not likely commence until early 2008. Judge Cheuvront will continue to serve as the trial judge. 16. Given the denial of Plaintiff s writ of habeas corpus and the Plaintiff s and people s lack of other means to seek relief in the Nebraska state courts, the declaratory relief sought here is otherwise unavailable. Furthermore, given the history of the past two trials, said language order continues to threaten the Plaintiff s rights, and the rights of all witnesses in the third trial against Safi, and raises issues that are capable of repetition yet will continue to evade review. 17. The actions of Judge Cheuvront against the Plaintiff impede Plaintiff s Page -5-

exercise of her federal constitutional rights including freedom of speech, petitioning, assembly and substantial and procedural due process. 18. The actions of Judge Cheuvront have caused and threaten to continue to cause the Plaintiff to suffer injuries that chill her ability to exercise constitutionally protected activity. Plaintiff faces threatened incarceration for contempt if she testifies fully and truthfully at trial. The trial of Plaintiff s accused assailant will be stalled by future mistrial orders if the Plaintiff continues to speak out publicly or protest against the court s order. 19. Judge Cheuvront, in his official capacity as a judicial officer for the State of Nebraska, has a duty to enforce the laws consistent with the dictates of, inter alia, the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution which guarantee freedom of speech and enjoyment of the privileges and immunities of citizenship. 20. Judge Cheuvront abrogated his duty in a manner that infringes on Plaintiff s free speech rights as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. As a result, Plaintiff has sustained, and will continue to sustain, injuries to her rights and to her ability to exercise said protected activity. COUNT II. FREEDOM OF ASSEMBLY AND PETITION 21. Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1-20 of Count I and incorporates the same by reference in this Count. 22. Judge Cheuvront in his official capacity as a judicial officer for the State of Nebraska has a duty to enforce the laws consistent with the dictates of, inter alia, the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution which guarantee Page -6-

petitioning and assembly rights and enjoyment of the privileges and immunities of citizenship. 23. Judge Cheuvront abrogated his duty in a manner that infringes on Plaintiff s freedom of assembly and petitioning rights as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. As a result, Plaintiff has sustained, and will continue to sustain, injuries to her rights and to her ability to exercise said protected activity. COUNT III. SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS 24. Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1-23 of Counts I and II and incorporates the same by reference in this Count. 25. Judge Cheuvront in his official capacity as a judicial officer for the State of Nebraska has a duty to enforce the laws consistent with the dictates of, inter alia, the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution which guarantees substantive due process rights and enjoyment of the privileges and immunities of citizenship. 26. Judge Cheuvront abrogated said duty in a manner that infringes on Plaintiff s constitutionally protected substantive due process rights. As a result, Plaintiff has sustained, and will continue to sustain, injuries to her rights and to her ability to exercise said protected activity. COUNT IV. PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS 27. Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1-26 of Counts I, II and III and incorporates the same by reference in this Count. Page -7-

28. Judge Cheuvront in his official capacity as a judicial officer for the State of Nebraska has a duty to enforce the laws consistent with the dictates of, inter alia, the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution which guarantees procedural due process rights and enjoyment of the privileges and immunities of citizenship. 26. Judge Cheuvront abrogated said duty in a manner that infringes on Plaintiff s constitutionally protected procedural due process rights. As a result, Plaintiff has sustained, and will continue to sustain, injuries to her rights and to her ability to exercise said protected activity. DEMANDS FOR JUDGMENT Plaintiff respectfully demands an expedited bench trial on all issues to the full extent provided by law. WHEREFORE Plaintiff, Bethany V. Bowen, prays for the following relief: 1. An order declaring that the defendant herein has acted in violation of the federal constitution; 2. such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. Dated: September 6, 2007 Respectfully submitted, Bethany V. Bowen, Plaintiff By her attorneys By: s/ Sue Ellen Wall Sue Ellen Wall #21552 WALL LAW OFFICE 650 J Street Suite 15 Lincoln NE 68508-2916 (402) 438-8815 Fax (402) 438-8825 Page -8-

E-mail: suellenlaw@cornhusker.net By s/wendy J. Murphy Wendy J. Murphy, Esq. Mass. Bar No. 550455 New England College of Law 154 Stuart Street Boston MA 02116-5610 617-422-7410 e-mail:wmurphylaw@aol.com By s/jennifer A. Hoult Jennifer A. Hoult, Esq. e-mail: JAHoult@cs.com Page -9-