Leading Judge Murnaghan Decisions

(click on the case name to read the decision)

In re Washington Post Co., 807 F.2d 383 (4th Cir. 1986) (Newspaper had First Amendment right of access to plea and sentencing hearings and to documents filed in connection with hearing).

Smith v. County of Albemarle, 895 F.2d 953 (4th Cir. 1990) (placement of a nativity scene violated the establishment clause, and requiring removal did not violate free speech rights even though lawn was a public forum).

Rum Creek Coal Sales, Inc. v. Caperton, 31 F.3d 169 (4th Cir. 1994) (concurring in part, dissenting in part) (stating that prohibiting a fee recovery for services involving an intervenor might unfairly dissuade civil rights plaintiffs from bringing a suit against unconstitutional actors).

Wilson v. Layne, 141 F.3d  111 (4th Cir. 1998) (en banc) (dissent) (Disagreeing with majority’s conclusion that no Fourth Amendment violation occurred when officers permitted two newspaper reporters to accompany them into a home and photograph the officers’ attempt to execute an arrest warrant).

Hawkins v. Freeman, 195 F.3d 732 (4th Cir. 1999) (dissent) (Disagreeing with majority’s conclusion that no due process violation occurred when parolee was rearrested after he was released in error and free for 20 months).

Urofsky v. Gilmore, 216 F.3d 401 (4th Cir. 2000) (dissent) (Finding that, by making the role of the speaker dispositive in the analysis, majority adopted an unduly restrictive interpretation of the First Amendment “public concern” doctrine).

United States v. Biocic, 928 F.2d 112 (4th Cir. 1991) (concurring) (Finding that majority questionably equates “nudity” with “indecency” in affirming the conviction of a defendant for engaging in semi nude sun bathing in violation of a local ordinance prohibiting intentional nude displays in public areas).

Jean v. Collins, 155 F.3d 701 (4th Cir. 1998) (dissent) (Majority’s conclusion that the alleged right to have police officers disclose exculpatory evidence to the prosecution was not “clearly established at the time of the prosecution” marks a movement of courts “pay[ing] lip service” to qualified immunity principles).

United States v. Lancaster, 96 F.3d 734 (4th Cir. 1996) (en banc) (dissent) (Reasoning that courts protect the constitutional rights of criminal defendants by adopting a rule that trial courts “abuse their discretion” when they refuse to ask prospective jurors on voire dire whether they believed that police and correctional officers are “more worthy in belief” than other members of the community).

Perry v. Leeke, 832 F.2d 837 (4th Cir. 1987) (dissent) (Disagreeing with majority’s conclusion that no per se reversal exists when a criminal defendant was not permitted to confer with his counsel during a 15 minute trial recess between his direct and cross examination).