Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant was indicted on a single count of possessing cocaine with intent to distribute. That same day, law enforcement officers interviewed Defendant at a proffer session, which was held pursuant to a written proffer agreement. The government promised Defendant it would not use against him any "statements made or other information" disclosed at the proffer session. After the proffer session failed, Defendant proceeded to trial. Despite its earlier assurances, the government presented at trial voice identification testimony from a police officer based on what the officer had heard at the proffer session. The testimony linked Defendant to an incriminating recorded telephone conversation. The jury found Defendant guilty. The First Circuit Court of Appeals vacated Defendant's conviction, holding (1) admission of the testimony violated the proffer agreement and Defendant's due process rights; and (2) the error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Remanded. View "United States v. Melvin" on Justia Law

Monserrate and Figueroa were convicted of participating in a conspiracy to commit armed robbery on armored trucks in Puerto Rico, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1951(a) and were sentenced to 72 and 54 months' imprisonment, respectively. The First Circuit affirmed, rejecting an argument that the evidence failed to prove that they joined the conspiracy charged in the indictment and a challenge to jury instructions. The court also rejected arguments that the district court erred in allowing the playback of audio recordings to the jury outside of defendants’ presence and in admitting certain hearsay statements. Although a variance occurred at trial, it did not substantially prejudice the defendants. View "United States v. Monserrate-Valentin" on Justia Law

Rosario, a member of the "Los Dementes" drug trafficking organization in Cataño and Guaynabo, Puerto Rico, was convicted of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute, 21 U.S.C. 846, and possession with intent to distribute both cocaine and crack cocaine, section 841(a)(1). The jury made specific drug quantity findings: at least 150 grams of crack cocaine and at least 5 kilograms of cocaine. The district court sentenced him to 151 months' incarceration and 10 years' supervised release. The First Circuit upheld the convictions, but found the evidence insufficient to support a finding, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Rosario was responsible for the elevated drug quantities. On remand, the court granted Rosario’s request for resentencing in Puerto Rico. Due to scheduling conflicts, he did not meet with counsel until the night before the hearing. The district court denied a continuance, found that Rosario could have foreseen the possession and distribution of five to 15 kilograms of cocaine, and again imposed a sentence of 151 months' incarceration and 10 years' supervised release. The First Circuit affirmed with respect to incarceration, finding no clear error in the sentencing court's drug quantity calculation, but vacated and remanded for recalculation of the term of supervised release. View "United States v. Rosario-Otero" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of the Dominican Republic, was convicted of unlawfully transferring a firearm around the same time that the Department of Homeland Security initiated removal proceedings against him. An immigration judge found that Petitioner's conviction constituted an aggravated felony under 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)(C) and pretermitted Petitioner's previously filed application for cancellation of removal. The board of immigration appeals (BIA) affirmed, finding that Defendnat's delivery of a firearm to a purchaser constituted "trafficking in firearms" under the statute. The First Circuit Court of Appeals denied Petitioner's petition for review, holding that the BIA's definition of "trafficking in firearms" as encompassing any commercial exchange was reasonable and consistent with the statute. View "Soto-Hernandez v. Holder" on Justia Law

After losing his job as a stockbroker and financial advisor and his accompanying health insurance, Appellant applied for and received subsidized health insurance for several years. Russell represented on each application that he had no income to report and was unemployed, but Appellant was working under the table during those years. After a government investigation and an ensuing jury trial, Appellant was convicted of making false statements in connection with the payment of health care benefits. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) the jury instruction on the definition of willfulness was not error; (2) the government presented sufficient evidence that Appellant's false statements were material to support the conviction; (3) the district court did not err in excluding certain testimony as state-of-mind hearsay; and (4) neither the prosecutor's statements during closing arguments nor his questions in eliciting testimony from a witness necessitated reversal. View "United States v. Russell" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendants Salvatore DiMasi, the former Speaker of the Massachusetts House of Representatives, and Richard McDonough, a lobbyist, were convicted of several crimes, including honest-services fraud and conspiracy to commit honest-services fraud, resulting from a scheme to funnel money to DiMasi in exchange for political favors. The district court sentenced DiMasi to ninety-six months' imprisonment and McDonough to eight-four months' imprisonment. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions and sentences, holding (1) the evidence was sufficient to support Defendants' convictions; (2) the trial court did not prejudicially err in instructing the jury; (3) the trial court did not err in its challenged evidentiary rulings; and (4) the trial court did not err in sentencing Defendants. View "United States v. McDonough" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant, a corrections officer, was convicted of drug and weapons charges for providing security for a drug transaction orchestrated by the FBI as part of a sting operation. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed subject to a limited remand, holding (1) the district court did not err in refusing to instruct the jury on entrapment, as the evidence was insufficient to raise a jury issue of entrapment; and (2) the sentence imposed by the district court was procedurally sound and substantively reasonable. Remanded for correction of a reference in the written judgment that caused no prejudice to Defendant. View "United States v. Diaz-Maldonado" on Justia Law

Defendants, Jimmy Carrasquillo-Rodriguez (Carrasquillo) and Jesus Pabellon Rodriguez (Pabellon), were convicted on drug and gun charges arising from a reverse sting operation set up by Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) agents seeking to reduce the flow of illegal narcotics from the Dominican Republic to Puerto Rico. With one exception, the First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed both Defendants' convictions and Carrasquillo's sentence, holding (1) Carrasquillo's conviction for possession of a firearm with an obliterated serial number was not supported by sufficient evidence; (2) the evidence was sufficient to sustain the remaining convictions challenged by Defendants; (3) the language in the verdict form did not constitute plain error sufficient to warrant a new trial; (4) the district court did not plainly err in its instructions to the jury; and (5) the district court did not err in sentencing Carrasquillo. View "United States v. Pabellon-Rodriguez" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to conspiring to possess with intent to distribute heroin, possessing with the intent to distribute heroin, conspiring to import heroin, and importing heroin into the United States. Defendant was sentenced to twenty-four months' imprisonment and two years of supervised release. Defendant appealed, arguing that her sentence was procedurally and substantively flawed. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the district court (1) did not err in denying Defendant's request for a continuance of the sentencing hearing; (2) did not abuse its discretion in choosing to impose a term of imprisonment; and (3) afforded Defendant an adequate opportunity to allocute. View "United States v. Pacheco" on Justia Law

A New Hampshire court issued a warrant to search Defendant's home after a state trooper submitted a supporting affidavit detailing the trooper's suspicion that Defendant's home contained a marijuana grow operation. Based on the items seized from Defendant's home, Defendant was charged with manufacturing marijuana, possessing marijuana with the intent to distribute, and possessing a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime. Defendant moved to suppress the evidence, arguing that the search warrant lacked probable cause. The district court suppressed the evidence, finding that the trooper recklessly omitted from his affidavit information material to a probable cause determination. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the search warrant at issue contained reckless material omissions, and the omitted information, when included back into the affidavit, failed to establish probable cause. View "United States v. Gifford" on Justia Law