Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

A Boston police officer spotted two men, including Appellant, matching the general description of culprits who had recently robbed a cell phone store. The officer stopped the men and questioned them. During the conversation, the officer received information from other officers that supported his suspicions. Appellant was brought to the scene of the crime, where he was identified in a “show-up” procedure. Appellant was charged with robbery and firearms offenses. Appellant filed a motion to suppress. The district court denied the motion, determining that the stop was justified by reasonable suspicion and that, although the show-up procedure was impermissibly suggestive, the store clerk’s identification was reliable and therefore admissible. Appellant entered a conditional guilty plea to the charged counts and then appealed the denial of his motions to suppress. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the district court (1) did not err in finding that the stop effectuated by the officer was accompanied by reasonable suspicion; and (2) did not err in refusing to suppress the store clerk’s eyewitness identification testimony. View "United States v. Arthur" on Justia Law

The three defendants in this appeal - Jose Vizcarrondo-Casanova, Carlos Aponte-Sobrado, and Erik Diaz-Colon - were convicted of crimes related to the kidnapping, robbery, and homicide of Elis Manuel Andrades-Telleria, a drug dealer and rival to Diaz-Colon. The defendants were among twelve people charged in a single indictment in connection with the crimes committed against Andrades-Telleria. The First Circuit affirmed all three defendants’ convictions, holding (1) the admission of evidence of prior shared criminal conduct among groups of the defendants charged in this case were permissible under Fed. R. Evid. 404(b) and 403; (2) certain remarks by the prosecutor during closing argument were not clearly and obviously improper; (3) although certain counts of Diaz-Colon’s indictment were constructively amended, the error did not prejudice Diaz-Colon; (4) the government was permitted to withdraw its plea offer made to Diaz-Colon before trial; and (5) the fact that the jury rendered inconsistent verdicts on two counts for which Diaz-Colon was convicted was not grounds for reversing Diaz-Colon’s convictions. View "United States v. Vizcarrondo-Casanova" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of robbing a bank using force and intimidation (Count One) and of carrying and brandishing and firearm to commit that robbery (Count Two). The district court imposed a mandatory life sentence for Count One and eighty-four months’ imprisonment for Count Two. The First Circuit found error in the sentence and remanded for resentencing. After a resentencing hearing at which the government presented additional evidence about Appellant’s prior offenses, the district court concluded that Appellant was a career offender and enhanced Appellant’s Guidelines sentence accordingly. Appellant was sentenced to a total of 420 months’ imprisonment. Appellant appealed his second sentence. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the district court did not err by considering at resentencing additional evidence to support the career offender enhancement. View "United States v. Davila-Felix" on Justia Law

Defendant and three co-defendants were recorded on three different videos engaging in sex acts with a fourteen-year-old girl. Defendant was subsequently charged with aiding and abetting the production of child pornography. At trial, Defendant contended that because he did not know he was being filmed he could not have aided and abetted the crime of producing child pornography. A jury found Defendant guilty. Defendant appealed his conviction and his sentence. The First Circuit (1) affirmed Defendant’s conviction, holding that a reasonable jury could have found Defendant guilty and that the trial judge did not deprive Defendant of his right to call a key witness; (2) affirmed Defendant’s prison sentence; but (3) vacated supervised release conditions that generally forbade Defendant from using a computer or the internet without permission from his probation officer or the court and that barred Defendant from having any pornographic material, as these conditions deprived Defendant of more liberty than reasonably necessary to achieve the goals of sentencing. View "United States v. Ramos" on Justia Law

Defendant was indicted for being a felon in possession of a firearm that had traveled in interstate commerce. Defendant moved to suppress the firearm, arguing that the officers who frisked him had no reasonable suspicion that he was armed and dangerous. The district court denied the motion. Defendant subsequently entered a conditional guilty plea to possessing a firearm as a convicted felon, reserving his right to appeal the suppression ruling. The district court sentenced Defendant to seventy months in prison after applying a six-level sentence enhancement based on a finding that Defendant’s prior Massachusetts conviction for assault and battery constituted a crime of violence under the Sentencing Guidelines. On appeal, the First Circuit affirmed the denial of Defendant’s suppression motion but vacated Defendant’s sentence, holding (1) the district court did not err in concluding that the search of Defendant was supported by reasonable suspicion; but (2) Defendant’s prior Massachusetts conviction did not constitute a crime of violence under the Sentencing Guidelines, and therefore, the district court improperly calculated Defendant’s base offense level. Remanded. View "United States v. Martinez" on Justia Law

Defendants Rivera-Rodriquez and Mercado-Cruz appealed their convictions and sentences on drug possession and distribution charges. The court affirmed Mercado-Cruz's conviction and sentence. However, the court vacated Rivera-Rodriquez's conviction due to the district court's improper questioning of witnesses and its intervention during closing arguments. View "United States v. Rivera-Rodriguez" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute a controlled substance. The court concluded that the evidence was sufficient to convict defendant of the conspiracy; the two statements at issue that were introduced to the jury did not violate defendant's Confrontation Clause rights and, moreover, any error was harmless; the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a new trial based on comments made by the prosecutor during closing; and the Montreal body shop business card found in defendant's wallet was properly admitted because it was relevant given the facts that the other participants in the conspiracy were Canadian. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Liriano" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction and sentence for three counts of sexual exploitation of a child and one count of possession of child pornography. The court concluded that the sexual abuse evidence at issue was admissible under Rule 404(b) to, among other things, establish defendant's motive for the offenses and show that his possession of the photographs of the victim was not a matter of mistake or accident; the sentencing enhancements were permissible under U.S.S.G. 2G2.1(b); and therefore, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Gonyer" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence and conviction for wire fraud. The court concluded that there was more than sufficient evidence from which a jury could have reasonably concluded that the government proved all of the essential elements of wire fraud; the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the testimony of two individuals that defendant had solicited in the past; the district court did not err in allowing the victim to testify at length as to statements made by defendant's associate during their meetings; and defendant's within-Guidelines sentence of 57 months was substantively reasonable. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. DiRosa" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence after pleading guilty to taking a motor vehicle by force, violence, and intimidation with the intent to cause death or serious bodily harm. The court concluded that defendant's upward variance did not violate Tapia v. United States where the district court provided a sufficient explanation for the variant sentence. In particular, the district court considered the especially high risk of future criminal activity, the concomitant need to protect the public, and defendant's unusual penchant for failing to comply with safeguards imposed by the judicial system. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Del Valle-Rodriguez" on Justia Law