Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of two counts of sending threats to injure another across state lines. Defendant appealed, arguing that the district court gave incorrect jury instructions on the meaning of the term "threat," that there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction, and that the district court had erred in denying his pre-trial motion to dismiss his indictment. Specifically, Defendant argued that the U.S. Supreme Court's 2003 decision in Virginia v. Black required that the jury use a subjective test of his intent and that it was insufficient to measure his intent by reference to an objectively reasonable person. On plain error review, the First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) absent further clarification from the Supreme Court, there was no basis to depart from this circuit's law that an objective test of a defendant's intent is used from the defendant's vantage point; and (2) even if a subjective specific intent instruction had been given, the jury would have, on these facts, found such intent. View "United States v. Clemens" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, the jury returned a conviction finding Defendant guilty of wire fraud and mail fraud. The district court upset the conviction and ordered a new trial, concluding that the government's closing argument was improper and may have tainted the jury's verdict. When the case was retried, the jury again convicted Defendant of the charges. The district court again granted a new trial, determining that the government's different closing argument led the jury to convict on an improper basis. The First Circuit Court of Appeals reversed and reinstated the jury's verdict of conviction, holding that the government's comments in its closing argument at the second trial were not improper. Remanded for sentencing. View "United States v. Carpenter" on Justia Law

Appellant pled guilty to possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug crime pursuant to a plea agreement that contained a waiver-of-appeal provision. Appellant was sentenced to sixty months' imprisonment and a five-year term of supervised release pursuant to the plea agreement. For the first six months of supervised release, the district court required Appellant to comply with curfew and electronic monitoring conditions. Appellant appealed these conditions of supervised release, contending that their imposition amounted to a miscarriage of justice. The First Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed Appellant's appeal, holding that Appellant's knowing and voluntary waiver of appeal extended to the contested conditions and barred his instant challenge. View "United States v. Rivera-Lopez" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, four former San Juan Municipal Police Department officers (Appellants) were convicted of several charges arising from the excessive use of force against a citizen who was beaten to death while in police custody. Appellants challenged their respective convictions and sentences on appeal. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions and sentences, ultimately finding none of Appellants' arguments meritorious. Among the various arguments advanced by Appellants was that the district court erred when sentencing one Appellant by using the less favorable U.S. Sentencing Guidelines in effect on the date of sentencing rather than the Guidelines manual in effect at the time of the offense. The Court held that the "one book" rule of the Guidelines does not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause of the Constitution as applied to a series of grouped offenses such as Appellant's. View "US v. Pagan-Ferrer" on Justia Law

In 2011, the FBI obtained a criminal complaint and warrant for Appellant's arrest. Several criminal charges were brought against Appellant, including sending letters to public officials threatening murder. The warrant was based on the use of a 2005 DNA profile of Appellant, which resulted in no charges against Appellant, that was used during the 2011 investigation and found to be a match to the DNA recovered from the threatening letters sent in 2011. Appellant filed a motion to suppress the fruits of the use of his 2005 DNA profile in securing the 2011 warrant. The trial court denied the motion. Appellant conditionally pled guilty to the charges and then appealed, arguing that the method of obtaining his DNA violated the Fourth Amendment. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's denial of Appellant's motion to suppress, holding (1) the method of obtaining Appellant's 2005 DNA sample violated the Fourth Amendment; but (2) application of the exclusionary rule in this case would be outweighed by the resulting costs to the criminal justice system. View "United States v. Thomas" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Petitioner was convicted of first-degree murder in state court. Petitioner's conviction was upheld on appeal. Petitioner subsequently filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the federal district court, asserting (1) the prosecutor improperly commented on his failure to testify in violation of the Fifth Amendment, and (2) he received ineffective assistance of counsel because his attorney inadvertently failed to produce certain medical records to the prosecution during discovery, which prevented counsel from questioning the defense's witness, a psychiatrist, about them at trial. The district court denied the petition. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) any error on the part of the prosecution was harmless; and (2) the omission of the records was not prejudicial, and whether or not Appellant's trial counsel made a strategic choice to omit the evidence this was not an error so serious that Defendant was deprived of his Sixth Amendment right to counsel. View "Pena v. Dickhaut" on Justia Law

In 2006, Appellant pled guilty to possession of cocaine with intent to distribute. Appellant was sentenced to a prison term plus supervised release, but the district court later revoked Defendant's term of supervised release and imposed a new supervised release term. While serving his second term of supervised release, Appellant pled guilty to three supervised release violations. Following a hearing, the district court revoked the extant term of supervised release and sentenced Appellant to a flat incarcerative term. Appellant appealed, arguing primarily that the district court violated Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(i)(3)(B) by failing to make rulings on controverted issues of fact raised at sentencing. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the sentence without deciding whether Rule 32 applies to a sentencing proceeding that follows the revocation of a term of supervised release, holding that Appellant failed to make out a viable claim under Rule 32(i)(3)(B). View "United States v. Gonzalez" on Justia Law

Defendant was indicted in 2012 for possession of a firearm by a felon based on his prior predicate conviction in 1995 of a state felony. Defendant moved to dismiss the count, arguing that he could not be classified as a felon under 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1) because he had his civil rights to sit on a jury and to hold public office restored as a matter of New Hampshire state law. At issue was whether Defendant's right to serve on a New Hampshire jury was restored before the date of the federal offense. The district court adopted Defendant's reading of New Hampshire's juror eligibility statutes and dismissed the felon in possession charge. The First Circuit Court of Appeals certified to the New Hampshire Supreme Court the question of law of whether Defendant's right to serve on a New Hampshire jury was restored as of the date of the federal crime under the New Hampshire Revised Statutes. View "United States v. Howe" on Justia Law

After a thirty-seven-day jury trial, Appellant was convicted of four terrorism-related counts and three counts premised on allegedly false statements and sentenced to a 210-month term of immurement. Defendant appealed, challenging, inter alia, his convictions on the four terrorism-related counts on the grounds that they were neither supported by the evidence nor constitutionally permissible. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) the evidence was sufficient to convict Defendant on the four terrorism-related counts and on the false statement counts; (2) the trial court did not prejudicially err in its evidentiary rulings; (3) Defendant's convictions were constitutional; and (4) the district court did not err in sentencing Defendant. View "United States v. Mehanna" on Justia Law

Appellant pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine. The district court sentenced Appellant to ten years in prison, finding that Appellant was responsible for a drug quantity that triggered a ten-year mandatory minimum. Appellant appealed, arguing that the district court erred in sentencing him because, among other things, the attributable drug quantity was not stated in the indictment, nor was it proven to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt or stipulated by Appellant in his plea. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) the district court erred in making the factual finding of drug quantity necessary to impose the ten-year mandatory minimum sentence where the quantity was neither alleged in the indictment nor admitted by Appellant at the time of his guilty plea, but the error was harmless; and (2) Appellant's other contentions were without merit. View "United States v. Harakaly" on Justia Law