The Law Office of Daniel A. Horwitz, Esq.

June 20, 2022

Tennessee Court of Appeals Affirms Trial Court Order Invalidating School Board Censorship Clause in Ex-Director Shawn Joseph’s Severance Agreement

By

In a pair of separate opinions issued today, the Tennessee Court of Appeals affirmed a ruling by Davidson County Chancery Court Judge Ellen Hobbs Lyle in favor of Plaintiffs Amy Frogge, Fran Bush, and Jill Speering, all represented by Horwitz Law, PLLC.  The ruling arose out of a lawsuit filed against Metro and ex-MNPS Director Shawn Joseph regarding the legality of the School Board Censorship Clause contained in Joseph’s severance agreement.  In a September 2020 Memorandum Order, Chancellor Lyle struck down the censorship clause as unconstitutional on multiple grounds and permanently enjoined its enforcement.

Among other things, the School Board Censorship Clause prohibited elected School Board members even from truthfully criticizing “Dr. Joseph and his performance as Director of Schools.”  Upon review of it, Chancellor Lyle ruled that the clause violated the Plaintiffs’ First Amendment rights, unlawfully prohibited them from speaking honestly with their constituents, and violated established Tennessee public policy.  As a result, Chancellor Lyle invalidated the clause as unenforceable and ordered Metro and Joseph to pay the Plaintiffs’ “reasonable costs and attorney’s fees,” which were pledged to charity.  Thereafter, both Metro and Joseph appealed.

Upon review of Chancellor Lyle’s ruling, the Court of Appeals unanimously affirmed in a pair of separate opinions.  By the time the case reached appeal, the Defendants had all but conceded that what they had done was illegal and attempted to use that concession as a basis for avoiding a judgment.  In their majority opinion, Judges Carma Dennis McGee and Andy Bennett noted that: “The fact that the defendants admit in their briefs that their contract was unlawful should not prevent Plaintiffs from having standing to challenge the contract in court.”  In a separate concurring opinion, Judge McBrayer undertook a wider review of several issues that the majority determined Metro and Joseph had waived through deficient briefing, and he held that:

“Here, the chancery court concluded that there was ‘no material dispute that the Nondisparagement Clause contained in the Severance Agreement . . . does not promote a compelling governmental interest, that it is unconstitutional, and that is an overbroad and unenforceable speech restriction.’ Based on my review of the record, I conclude the same.”

“This is a landmark victory on behalf of both elected officials’ free speech rights and citizens’ right to hear from their elected representatives,” said attorney Daniel A. Horwitz, who represented all three Plaintiffs along with co-counsel Lindsay Smith.  “Metro and Joseph should be ashamed of their efforts to gag elected officials and prevent them from speaking honestly with their constituents about issues of tremendous public importance, and their illegal attempt to do so should serve as a costly warning to other government officials to think twice before violating the First Amendment.”

###

As part of Horwitz Law’s First Amendment practice, Horwitz Law has successfully represented and advised numerous state and local elected officials, candidates for public office, PACs and political organizations, county political parties, and other political law clients across Tennessee.  If you are seeking First Amendment or political law assistance, you can purchase a consultation from Horwitz Law here.

Posted in: Appeals, Constitutional Law, Daniel Horwitz, Election Law, Litigation
Tags:
May 30, 2022

In Victory for Horwitz Law PLLC Client, Tennessee Supreme Court Rules that the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation Lacks Authority to Violate Court Orders

By

“The determination of whether an offense is eligible for expunction is an obligation entrusted to courts, not the TBI[,]” the Tennessee Supreme Court has ruled.  Accordingly, “the TBI lacked authority to refuse to comply” with a final and unappealed expungement order that no statute “authorize[d] the TBI to disregard or revise[.]”  The Tennessee Supreme Court’s unanimous opinion powerfully vindicates expungement rights under Tennessee law, the right of Tennesseans to sue the government for acting illegally, and citizens’ right to demand that the government comply with court orders.

The case arose out of a years-old expungement order that was entered by agreement of a District Attorney and approved by a judge following a diversionary plea agreement.  When such an expungement order is entered, Tennessee law obligates the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation to process it within sixty days of receipt.  In lieu of complying with the court’s order, though, the TBI opted to violate it, believing that the order was wrong.  “But no statute grants the TBI authority to independently review and decline to comply with a final expunction order it considers erroneous,” the Tennessee Supreme Court explained.

Along the way to reaching this holding, the Tennessee Supreme Court forcefully affirmed Tennesseans’ rights to sue the government for acting illegally.  As relevant to the case, in 2018, the Tennessee General Assembly enacted a critical new statute—Tennessee Code Annotated § 1-3-121—that established the right of “any affected person” to sue the government “regarding the legality or constitutionality of a governmental action.”  In full, Tenn. Code Ann. § 1-3-121 provides that:

“Notwithstanding any law to the contrary, a cause of action shall exist under this chapter for any affected person who seeks declaratory or injunctive relief in any action brought regarding the legality or constitutionality of a governmental action.  A cause of action shall not exist under this chapter to seek damages.”

Despite the clarity of this statute, the Tennessee Attorney General’s Office spent the next several years arguing in bad faith that the statute was meaningless; that it did not mean what it said; and that it did not permit any lawsuits to be filed against state government at all.  But “[t]he General Assembly clearly and unmistakably waived sovereign immunity by enacting Tennessee Code Annotated section 1-3-121,” the Tennessee Supreme Court explained, and “[t]he plain meaning of this text expressly recognizes the existence of causes of action ‘regarding the legality or constitutionality of a governmental action’ that seek declaratory or injunctive relief.”  Accordingly, the Tennessee Supreme Court ruled that the Plaintiff’s lawsuit against the TBI and its Director for willfully violating a court order was permissible, and it ordered a lower court to grant the Plaintiff’s claim for injunctive and declaratory relief, which the court had to that point denied.

“We appreciate the Tennessee Supreme Court unanimously vindicating our client’s expungement rights,” said Horwitz Law PLLC attorney Daniel A. Horwitz, who represented the Plaintiff along with co-counsel Lindsay Smith.  “However, we are disturbed that the Tennessee Attorney General’s Office had to be reminded by a court yet again that its job is to uphold the law, not to encourage government officials to violate it.  Having engaged in lawless behavior that would land any other contemnor in jail and that would subject any other attorney to professional discipline, we hope that Director Rausch and Attorney General Slatery won’t need to be reminded again.”

The TBI and its Director, David Rausch—who asserted the government’s entitlement to violate court orders—were unsuccessfully represented in the case by attorneys Rob Mitchell (BPR 32266), Miranda Jones (BPR 36070), and Mallory Schiller (36191) of the Tennessee Attorney General’s Office.  In advance of the Tennessee Supreme Court’s unanimous reversal, they opposed appellate review in the case on the basis that “there is no probability of reversal.”

The Parties’ oral argument in the case can be viewed here.  The Plaintiff’s briefing in the case is linked below.

Principal Brief: https://horwitz.law/wp-content/uploads/Principal-Brief-of-Appellant-Stampfiled.pdf

Reply Brief: https://horwitz.law/wp-content/uploads/Appellants-Reply-Brief.pdf

Read the Tennessee Supreme Court’s unanimous opinion in Recipient of Final Expunction Order in McNairy County Circuit Court Case No. 3279 v. David B. Rausch, Director of the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation, and Tennessee Bureau of Investigation, authored by Justice Sharon G. Lee, here: https://www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/recipient.of_.finalexp.3279.opn_.pdf

If you are seeking expungement or appellate assistance, you can purchase a consultation from Horwitz Law here.

Posted in: Appeals, Constitutional Law, Daniel Horwitz
Tags:
April 15, 2022

Tennessee Bureau of Ethics and Campaign Finance, Registry of Election Finance Held In Contempt, Ordered to Return $64,000.00 It Collected in Willful Violation of Permanent Injunction

By

The Tennessee Bureau of Ethics and Campaign Finance, Registry of Election Finance “is in contempt of court,” a senior Chancery Court judge has found.  The finding arose from the Registry’s willful collection of $64,000.00 in PAC fees in violation of a permanent injunction prohibiting it from doing so.  “[T]he Registry shall refund all improperly collected registration fees, obtained through the enforcement of Tenn. Code Ann. §2-10-121 in violation of this Court’s injunction, within 15 days,” the Court’s order reads.  It further “ORDERED that additional coercive fines will be considered if defendant fails to refund the registration fees as ordered above[.]”

The contempt proceeding at issue arose from an injunction secured by the election reform advocacy group Tennesseans for Sensible Election Laws in 2018.  Based in part on misconduct by the Tennessee Attorney General’s Office, that injunction was thereafter upheld on appeal by the Tennessee Court of Appeals, which additionally concluded that a mid-litigation statutory amendment to the underlying statute did not moot the case.  A subsequent order issued in December 2021 opted to keep the injunction in place, finding that the Registry had “failed to allege, or meet, the ‘significant change in the law’ standard for relief from prospective enforcement of a final judgment containing an injunction.”

In advance of the contempt trial, discovery revealed that despite knowing that the court’s permanent injunction remained unmodified, Registry officials had opted to begin enforcing the enjoined statute again at the recommendation of the Tennessee Attorney General’s Office.  It additionally revealed that the Registry “expected” a contempt petition to result from its renewed enforcement.  In defense of its violation of a permanent injunction, though, the Registry asserted that “sovereign immunity bars” a contempt petition against the government “as a matter of law”—a position that would mean the government may violate court orders without consequence.  “[T]his simply cannot be[,]” Senior Judge Wright concluded in an April 6 2022 order, noting that such a result would render the separation of powers doctrine “a nullity” and reduce the judiciary “to a paper tiger with the authority to declare an action of the legislative or executive branch to be unconstitutional but an inability to enforce its judgment.”

Upon review of the Registry’s behavior, Judge Wright concluded that “[t]he injunction at issue was lawful,” that it “is clear and unambiguous,” and that the Registry’s “conscious choice” and “deliberate” decision to enforce the enjoined statute was “willful.”  Accordingly, “the Court FINDS that the defendant willfully violated this Court’s injunction by a preponderance of the evidence,” Judge Wright’s order reads.

“While the Tennessee Attorney General’s lawless approach to court orders and constitutional rights continues unabated, so does TSEL’s commitment to vindicating the rights of Tennesseans to participate in elections without illicit governmental interference,” said Daniel A. Horwitz, who represented TSEL with attorneys Jamie Hollin and Lindsay Smith.  “Court orders are not voluntary—even for the state officials who wrongly believe themselves to be above the law.  We look forward to ensuring the return of $64,000.00 that the Tennessee Attorney General’s Office instructed the Registry to steal.”

The Registry was unsuccessfully represented by attorneys Alex Rieger, Matt Jones, and Janet Kleinfelter, all of the Tennessee Attorney General’s Office.  Contact them at @TNattygen.

Read the Chancery Court’s Memorandum Opinion and Order on Plaintiff’s Petition for Contempt here: https://horwitz.law/wp-content/uploads/Memorandum-Opinion-and-Order-on-Plaintiffs-Petition-for-Contemp-1.pdf

###

Horwitz Law has successfully represented and advised numerous state and local elected officials, candidates for public office, PACs and political organizations, county political parties, and other political law clients across Tennessee regarding campaign finance, election, and political law issues. Horwitz Law has also successfully represented clients in landmark election-related litigation concerning local, state, and federal election law. Daniel A. Horwitz—Horwitz Law’s founding member—formerly served as election counsel for the Tennessee Democratic Party, and he currently serves as General Counsel for Tennesseans For Sensible Election Laws, an election-reform oriented multicandidate political campaign committee and advocacy group.

If you are seeking campaign finance, election law, or political law assistance, you can purchase a consultation from Horwitz Law here.

Posted in: Constitutional Law, Daniel Horwitz, First Amendment, Litigation
Tags: , ,
January 1, 2022

Happy New Year to the Tennessee Public Participation Act!

By

By Daniel A. Horwitz (Republished from the Tennessee Free Speech Blog):

In 2019, Tennessee’s free speech law underwent a sea change.  The Tennessee Public Participation Act—Tennessee’s first-ever meaningful anti-SLAPP law—took effect, ushering in a host of critical protections for people sued for defamation (libel or slander), false light invasion of privacy, business disparagement, or other speech-based torts.

Heading into its third year of existence, it is clear at this point that the Tennessee Public Participation Act is working.  If 2021 is a sign of things to come, Tennessee’s free speech law is also headed in the right direction.

Building on a series of important wins in 2020, the results that the TPPA produced in 2021 cannot be overstated.  To list just a few of them:

In June of 2021, the Tennessee Court of Appeals affirmed an anti-SLAPP judgment—the first ever anti-SLAPP judgment issued in Tennessee—in favor of a Wilson County woman who posted a negative Yelp! review.  The end result was that the thin-skinned doctor who baselessly sued her was ordered to pay a cumulative $75,000.00 cost, fee, and sanctions award for his SLAPP-suit across a pair of cases filed in Wilson County Circuit and General Sessions Court.

In March of 2021—and then again in July 2021—Circuit Courts in separate counties affirmed the constitutionality of the Tennessee Public Participation Act over a Plaintiff’s constitutional challenge.

In December of 2021, the Tennessee Court of Appeals signaled that it would treat the TPPA’s statutory discovery stay seriously, entering an immediate order staying discovery pending appeal upon a defendant’s application for extraordinary appeal on the matter.

Also in December of 2021, SmileDirectClub’s multi-billion dollar SLAPP-suit against NBC Universal was dismissed under the TPPA.

Also in December of 2021, the Circuit Court of Overton County granted several public school parents’ TPPA petitions to dismiss a SLAPP-suit filed by a public school teacher who had been lawfully accused of sexual predation and harassment against students.

Also in December of 2021, the Tennessee Court of Appeals affirmed both an anti-SLAPP judgment and a $39,000 fee and sanctions award issued against a congressional candidate who sued a trio of activists for criticizing him on Facebook.  The Court of Appeals additionally issued appellate sanctions against the candidate for filing a frivolous appeal.

There were some setbacks for the TPPA, though.  Most prominently, the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee held for the first time that the Tennessee Public Participation Act does not apply in federal court—one of many reasons why a federal anti-SLAPP law remains essential.  The media’s nasty habit of covering SLAPP-suits only at their inception and hyping the liability that a defendant faces—then failing to follow up once a SLAPP-suit predictably fails—has not improved, either, even when media defendants themselves are the targets.

All considered, however, 2021 was a tremendous year for Tennessee’s nascent anti-SLAPP law.  Here’s to more wins—and more protected speech—in 2022.

Daniel Horwitz is a free speech lawyer who represents clients across Tennessee.

Posted in: Constitutional Law, Daniel Horwitz, Defamation, First Amendment, Tennessee Public Participation Act
Tags:
October 2, 2021

Following Unanimous Ruling by the Tennessee Court of Appeals, Horwitz Law, PLLC Client Kenneth Mynatt Wins Malicious Prosecution Appeal

By

In an opinion issued September 28, 2021, the Tennessee Court of Appeals has ordered that Horwitz Law, PLLC appellate client Kenneth Mynatt’s malicious prosecution and civil conspiracy claims be reinstated.  The Court’s unanimous ruling, authored by Judge Thomas R. Frierson, explains that the retirement of a criminal charge does not categorically preclude a subsequent civil malicious prosecution claim under Tennessee law, because the retirement of a criminal charge is not necessarily a compromise resolution or a final termination of proceedings.  The ruling creates important and controlling precedent in Tennessee regarding when civil malicious prosecution claims may be filed after criminal charges have been retired.  Accordingly, Mr. Mynatt’s lawsuit will be allowed to move forward.

“In this matter, Mr. Mynatt asserted unambiguously in his complaint that he had refused all ‘deals’ or agreements with the District Attorney concerning his criminal charges,” the Court’s opinion explains.  “Mr. Mynatt claimed that he was innocent of the charges and that the District Attorney was made aware of his claim that the evidence against him had been falsified.”  “Significantly, the retirement of the charges brought against Mr. Mynatt [also] was not the final disposition or termination of those charges,” and “Mr. Mynatt maintained his innocence regarding the charges throughout the complaint.”  Further, the Court’s opinion explains, “if the charges against him were dismissed because of a lack of proof of his guilt, then such a termination would clearly be as favorable as” other dispositions that may sustain a malicious prosecution claim.  “We therefore conclude that the trial court’s judgment granting Defendants’ motion to dismiss must be reversed.”

Malicious prosecution claims are notoriously difficult to win in Tennessee.  They are not impossible, however, and allegations like Mr. Mynatt’s can sustain them.  “We are proud to have represented Mr. Mynatt on appeal and to have won him a unanimous reversal that permits his claims to move forward,” said Horwitz Law, PLLC principal Daniel A. Horwitz, who represented Mr. Mynatt along with Horwitz Law attorney Lindsay Smith.

Read the Tennessee Court of Appeals’ unanimous ruling in Kenneth J. Mynatt v. National Treasury Employees Union, Chapter 39 et al., here.  Mr. Mynatt’s briefing in the case is available below.

– Principal Brief of Appellant Kenneth J. Mynatt

– Reply Brief of Appellant Kenneth J. Mynatt

###

As part of Horwitz Law, PLLC’s appellate practice, Horwitz Law has successfully represented appellate clients in high-stakes, high-profile appeals before the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, the Tennessee Supreme Court, the Tennessee Court of Appeals, the Tennessee Supreme Court Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel, and in administrative agency appeals to Davidson County Chancery Court.  Horwitz Law also provides amicus curiae representation in both state and federal appellate courts.  If you are seeking appellate representation, you can purchase a consultation from Horwitz Law here.

Posted in: Constitutional Law, Daniel Horwitz, Litigation
Tags:
September 24, 2021

Davidson County Chancery Court Orders Tennessee’s Board of Parole to Stop Violating the Reentry Success Act of 2021

By

Earlier this year, Tennessee enacted the Reentry Success Act of 2021 into law.  The Reentry Success Act overhauls Tennessee’s parole laws, and it was designed to reform several components of the parole hearing process, parole determinations, and parole eligibility.

As soon as the Reentry Success Act took effect, however, the Tennessee Board of Parole began insisting that the Act would not be effective for a huge number of its beneficiaries. As grounds, Board of Parole staff attorney Rachel Hitt complained that “the Board does not have the ability or resources necessary to identify” those cases—part of Tennessee Governor Bill Lee’s PR-first, substance-last approach to criminal justice reform.  Accordingly, one inmate who was presumptively entitled to be released on parole under the Reentry Success Act of 2021 filed suit, seeking to compel the Board of Parole to comply with the law.

In a late Friday afternoon ruling, Davidson County Chancellor Anne C. Martin agreed that the Board of Parole had violated the Reentry Success Act of 2021.  “[T]he Court finds that the Board failed to adhere to the requirement of the Act, codified at Tenn. Code Ann. § 40- 35-503(i) and (j), when it denied [the Petitioner’s] June 23, 2021 request for a parole hearing earlier than July of 2022 and in reasonable proximity to his release eligibility date,” the Court’s ruling reads.  Accordingly, it is “ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that Mr. Hughes’ petition is GRANTED and this matter is REMANDED to the Board of Parole with instructions to DETERMINE his release eligibility date and SET A PAROLE HEARING within sixty (60) days of that date.”

“The Board of Parole has long been Tennessee’s most disgraceful government agency, and the Lee Administration should be ashamed of its two-faced approach to criminal justice reform,” said attorney Daniel A. Horwitz, who represented Mr. Hughes with Horwitz Law, PLLC attorney Lindsay Smith.  “Laws are not suggestions—even for unqualified patronage appointees and others who draw taxpayer-funded salaries.  We look forward to reuniting Mr. Hughes with his family by Christmas.”

Case Documents

-The Court’s September 24, 2021 ruling can be found here: https://horwitz.law/wp-content/uploads/21-0618-II-9-24-21-SIGNED.pdf

-Mr. Hughes’ Brief can be found here: https://horwitz.law/wp-content/uploads/Hughes-Brief.pdf

-Mr. Hughes’ Petition for a Writ of Certiorari can be found here: https://horwitz.law/wp-content/uploads/Hughes-Petition-and-Attachments.pdf

-Background on the Reentry Success Act of 2021 and its presumption of parole for eligible inmates can be found here: https://horwitz.law/wp-content/uploads/Reentry-Success-Act-of-2021-White-Paper-DAH-7-1-21.pdf

###

Daniel A. Horwitz is a Nashville-based lawyer who represents clients across Tennessee.  If you are seeking representation, you can purchase a consultation from Horwitz Law here.

Contact: [email protected]

 

Posted in: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law
Tags:
June 29, 2021

Horwitz Law, PLLC Files Suit to Vindicate Nashville Woman’s First Amendment Right to Display Vanity Plate

By

When Nashville woman Leah Gilliam purchased a vanity plate to celebrate her interests in astronomy and gaming, it did not occur to her that her constitutionally protected speech could land her in jail.  Due to the Tennessee Department of Revenue’s determination—more than a decade after the fact—that Ms. Gilliam’s “69PWNDU” vanity plate is illegally “offensive,” though, she is now at risk of prosecution if she does not submit to the State of Tennessee’s unlawful prior restraint.  Accordingly, Horwitz Law, PLLC has filed suit on Ms. Gilliam’s behalf, arguing that Tennessee’s vanity plate law violates the First Amendment by discriminating based on viewpoint and is unconstitutionally vague.

“The First Amendment forbids the government from discriminating against citizens based on the viewpoint they express,” said Horwitz Law, PLLC principal Daniel A. Horwitz, who represents Ms. Gilliam along with attorneys Lindsay Smith and David Hudson.  “Ms. Gilliam’s harmless vanity plate is transparently protected by the First Amendment, and the only illegality involved is the Tennessee Department of Revenue’s decision to violate her First Amendment rights.”

In addition to her lawsuit against Tennessee Department of Revenue Commissioner David Gerregano, Ms. Gilliam has filed an application for a temporary injunction seeking to enjoin enforcement of Tennessee’s vanity plate revocation law against her pending the conclusion of judicial review.

Daniel A. Horwitz is a First Amendment and speech defense lawyer who represents clients across Tennessee.  If you are seeking speech defense or First Amendment representation, you can purchase a consultation from Horwitz Law here.

Contact: [email protected]

Posted in: Constitutional Law, Daniel Horwitz, First Amendment
Tags:
October 28, 2020

Horwitz Secures First-Ever Exoneration of Nashville Man Wrongfully Convicted of Murder; Joseph Webster Released, Has Conviction Vacated After 14 Years In Prison

By

Following a four-year effort to exonerate Joseph Webster for his wrongful conviction of a 1998 murder, the Davidson County District Attorney’s Office has announced that it “no longer has confidence in the conviction of Mr. Webster” and recommends that “Mr. Webster’s conviction be vacated and the charges against him dismissed.”  Acting on its Conviction Review Unit’s recommendation, the District Attorney’s Office filed a formal Notice of Intent to vacate and dismiss the charges against Mr. Webster on October 29, 2020.  Mr. Webster’s exoneration will be the first in Nashville history since the Davidson County Conviction Review Unit was established in 2016.

“After a decade and a half in prison for a murder that he did not commit, I am overjoyed that Joseph Webster’s wrongful conviction will finally be overturned,” said Daniel Horwitz, Webster’s attorney. “Mr. Webster is immeasurably grateful to those who took the time to conduct a thorough reinvestigation of his case and see that this wrong was righted.  Mr. Webster is also thinking of the entire Owens family at this time, which has to process the painful news of learning that the wrong person was convicted of committing this brutal murder.” A hearing that will enable Mr. Webster’s immediate release from prison is scheduled for November 10, 2020 at 9:00 a.m.  Webster’s case also resulted in the Conviction Review Unit’s first reinvestigation of a potential wrongful murder conviction in Nashville’s history.

Webster’s conviction was formally vacated on November 10, 2020.  He was released from prison the same day.  Selected case documents and media coverage appear below.

Daniel Horwitz is an innocence and post-conviction attorney based in Nashville, Tennessee.  If you would like to purchase a consultation from Horwitz, you can do so using the following form:

Consultation Payment Form

Payment for: 30-Minute Consultation

Amount: $300.00

Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...

Selected Case Documents:

*Order Granting Petition for Writ of Error Coram Nobis Vacating Conviction

–District Attorney’s Notice of Intent to Vacate

–Petitioner’s Motion to Reopen Post-Conviction Petition and Petition to Issue Writ of Error Coram Nobis

–District Attorney’s Response

Selected Media Coverage:

-USA Today: ‘Oh, it’s been so long’: Mother collapses with joy after wrongfully convicted son freed

-The Tennessean: Judge overturns murder conviction of Nashville man serving life in prison in 1998 case

-The Tennessean: Nashville DA’s office moves to overturn conviction of man serving life for 1998 murder

-New York Times: Imprisoned Nearly 15 Years, but Now Cleared of a Murder He Didn’t Commit

-NBC: Tennessee man freed after nearly 15 years in prison for wrongful murder conviction

-CNN: Tennessee man exonerated after serving 15 years for a murder he didn’t commit

-The Tennessean: Nashville judge hears arguments for dropping charges against Joseph Webster

-The Tennessean: ‘The conviction is wrongful’: Attorney discusses Nashville man’s life sentence case

-The Nashville Scene: DA’s Office Seeks Release for Nashville Man Convicted of 1998 Murder

-NPR-WPLN: Nashville District Attorney Agrees To Review Conviction In 1998 Murder Case

-NPR-WPLN: Investigation: After Pledging To Examine Innocence Claims, Nashville DA Has Yet To Open A Case

–New York Post: Tennessee man walks free after 1998 murder conviction is overturned

-People: Tennessee Man, 41, Exonerated After Judge Overturns 1998 Murder Conviction

-Channel 5: Joseph Webster adjusting to freedom after judge dismisses murder conviction

-Channel 4: Joseph Webster reunites with family after judge vacates murder conviction 14 years into prison sentence

-Fox 17: Nashville man imprisoned for murder for almost 15 years may walk free

-Fox 17: FERRIER FILES: Nashville murder conviction investigation to be reopened

-Fox 17: FERRIER FILES: Is Nashville man serving a life sentence innocent?

-Fox 17: FERRIER FILES: Imprisoned man’s DNA not on murder weapon

-Channel 5: Wrongful conviction requests are getting a second look

-The Tennessean: District attorney redesigns ‘burdensome’ process of searching for wrongful convictions

Posted in: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law, Daniel Horwitz
Tags:
September 15, 2020

Davidson County Chancery Court Judge Rules in Favor of School Board Members, Invalidates Censorship Clause in Ex-MNPS Director Shawn Joseph’s Severance Agreement

By

In an order issued earlier this afternoon, Davidson County Chancery Court Judge Ellen Hobbs Lyle ruled in favor of Plaintiffs Amy Frogge, Fran Bush, and Jill Speering, who earlier this year sued Metro and ex-MNPS Director Shawn Joseph over the legality of the School Board censorship clause contained in Joseph’s severance agreement.  In a Memorandum Order, Chancellor Lyle struck down the censorship clause as unconstitutional on multiple grounds and permanently enjoined its enforcement.

Among other things, the clause prohibited elected School Board members even from truthfully criticizing “Dr. Joseph and his performance as Director of Schools.”  Upon review of it, Chancellor Lyle ruled that the clause violated the Plaintiffs’ First Amendment rights, unlawfully prohibited them from speaking honestly with their constituents, and violated established Tennessee public policy.  As a result, the clause was invalidated as unenforceable.  Metro and Joseph will additionally be required to pay the Plaintiffs’ “reasonable costs and attorney’s fees,” which have been pledged to charity.

“This is a landmark victory on behalf of both elected officials’ free speech rights and citizens’ right to hear from their elected representatives,” said attorney Daniel Horwitz, who represented all three Plaintiffs.  “Metro and Joseph should be ashamed of their efforts to gag elected officials and prevent them from speaking honestly with their constituents about issues of tremendous public importance, and their illegal attempt to do so should serve as a costly warning to other government officials to think twice before violating the First Amendment.”

Daniel Horwitz is a First Amendment lawyer who represents clients across Tennessee.  If you would like to purchase a consultation from him, you can do using the form below.

Consultation Payment Form

Payment for: 30-Minute Consultation

Amount: $300.00

Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...

Posted in: Constitutional Law, Daniel Horwitz, First Amendment
Tags: , ,
September 11, 2020

Horwitz Wins Lawsuit Striking Down Politician-Favoring Criminal Defamation Law, Secures $69,882.37 Fee Award

By

In a resounding win for free speech, Davidson County Chancellor Ellen Hobbs Lyle has issued an order striking down Tennessee’s criminal defamation law prohibiting false “campaign literature in opposition to any candidate in any election.”  Finding that the law represented an unlawful content-based, viewpoint-based, and identity-based speech restriction that could not withstand scrutiny under the First Amendment or the Tennessee Constitution, Chancellor Lyle invalidated the law as unconstitutional.

“Tennesseans have a constitutional right to mock and satirize politicians, and candidates for office cannot lawfully use the threat of a criminal prosecution to inhibit criticism,” Horwitz said in a statement to The Tennessean. “Tennesseans For Sensible Election Laws is proud to have won this important case and made Tennessee’s democratic process freer once again.”

Along with the win, in an order entered on September 11, 2020, Horwitz additionally secured a final judgment “awarding Plaintiff recovery of $69,882.37 in attorneys’ fees and expenses.“

Daniel Horwitz is a free speech and election lawyer who represents clients across Tennessee.  If you would like to purchase a consultation from him, you can do using the form below.

Consultation Payment Form

Payment for: 30-Minute Consultation

Amount: $300.00

Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...

Posted in: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law, Daniel Horwitz, Defamation, Election Law, Litigation
Tags: , , , ,