Joan Louise Larsen
How Judge Larsen decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
Decides Sec 1983 claims arising from vacated convictions strictly on the merits, in both directions: a vacated conviction does NOT by itself make the officer liable (Chancellor -- affirmed SJ for the officer where the warrant affidavit and probable cause held up), but where the record shows the detective deliberately buried exculpatory evidence she will affirm a large plaintiff's verdict (Ansari -- $10M, Brady).
“A jury found for Ansari and awarded him $10 million in damages. Jimenez now appeals. We AFFIRM.”
Reads the Heck v. Humphrey bar narrowly: once the underlying conviction has actually been vacated, Heck poses no barrier to a Sec 1983 damages suit attacking the investigation.
“The Heck bar does not apply here.”
Procedural preferences
On a criminal appeal she reviews jury-instruction, evidentiary, and sufficiency challenges and will affirm across the board where the record supports the verdict -- a high bar for a defendant-appellant to clear.
“He appealed, challenging the jury instructions, the admission of certain evidence, and the sufficiency of the evidence to support the conspiracy charges. We AFFIRM.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“The district court granted summary judgment to Geelhood. Chancellor now appeals. We AFFIRM.”
“He appealed, challenging the jury instructions, the admission of certain evidence, and the sufficiency of the evidence to support the conspiracy charges. We AFFIRM.”
“A jury found for Ansari and awarded him $10 million in damages. Jimenez now appeals. We AFFIRM.”