Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

An investigation of gang-related drug trafficking by the FBI led to the arrest of Appellant, a key supplier of crack cocaine in his community. Defendant pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute crack cocaine and distribution of crack cocaine and received a thirteen-year sentence. Defendant appealed, claiming that his prior felony conviction did not warrant the career offender enhancement and that the district court erred in denying his request for resentencing and failing adequately to explain the reasons for his sentence. The First Circuit Court of Appeals vacated Appellant's sentence and remanded for clarification, holding (1) the district court did not err in its application of the career offender enhancement, as Appellant's conviction for the burglary of a dwelling qualified as a crime of violence under the sentencing guidelines' residual clause; but (2) the record was insufficient to determine whether the district court applied the sentencing enhancement for knowingly or intentionally using a person who is a minor in violating 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1), and whether, in so doing, the court miscalculated Appellant's guidelines range. View "United States v. Ramirez" on Justia Law

Defendant was found guilty in a New York court of assaulting his wife Megan and sentenced to time served. At approximately the same time, the court entered a protection order prohibiting Defendant from approaching or communicating with Megan. Defendant later pled guilty to a statute criminalizing interstate travel with the intent to engage in conduct that transgresses a court-imposed protection order. The district court accepted the guideline calculations limned in the presentence investigation (PSI) report and imposed a top-of-the-range sentence of forty-one months. Defendant appealed his sentence, arguing that the sentencing court's two-level upward adjustment for violation of the court protection order constituted impermissible double counting because the violation of a court order was also an element of the offense of conviction. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the use in tandem of a base offense level dictated by U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual 2A6.2(a) and an upward adjustment under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual 2A6.2(b)(1)(A) did not constitute impermissible double counting. View "United States v. Fiume" on Justia Law

Defendant, an engineer for battery producer Electric Vehicles Worldwide (EVW), was convicted of submitting false invoices and conspiring to defraud the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) in connection with federal grants to develop a battery for electric mass transit. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed Defendant's convictions, holding (1) the government's evidence was sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Defendant intentionally submitted false or fraudulent claims or conspired to defraud the FTA; and (2) the trial court did not err in refusing to give Defendant's requested theory-of-defense jury instructions on condonation and reasonable interpretation of regulations. View "United States v. Willson" on Justia Law

Pursuant to a warrant, federal agents searched Defendant, a suspected drug dealer, in his apartment in Warwick, Rhode Island, where the agents found drugs and drug paraphernalia. After Defendant consented to a search of his home in nearby Cranston, the agents found more drugs, drug paraphernalia, and firearms. After searching Defendant's car the next day, agents found even more drugs. Defendant was charged in a multicount indictment with drug and weapons defenses. Defendant unsuccessfully moved to suppress the evidence seized at the Warwick and Cranston locales. A jury subsequently convicted Defendant of all counts. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) the district judge did not deprive Defendant of his right to choose his own counsel; (2) the judge did not abuse his discretion in finding Defendant competent for trial without first ordering a psychiatric exam; (3) Defendant's ineffective assistance of counsel claims were not appropriate for appellate review; and (4) the judge did not err in denying Defendant's motion for a new trial. View "United States v. Maldonado" on Justia Law

Leonard Giguere served in the U.S. Army during the Vietnam War. Giguere was injured in a landmine explosion, causing a hernia that affected the arrangement of some of his internal organs. Four decades later, Giguere underwent surgery in Massachusetts for his condition. He died four days later. Giguere's estate brought a medical malpractice claim against the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act. After a bench trial, the district court entered judgment for the united States. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the district court (1) did not commit an error of law as to the standard of care it used; (2) did not abuse its discretion as to several of its evidentiary rulings; and (3) did not make factual findings the evidence did not support. View "Jackson v. United States" on Justia Law

After a bench trial, Defendant was convicted of violating and conspiring to violate the federal wire-fraud statute, a law that criminalizes a scheme to defraud involving an interstate-wire communication. Defendant appealed, arguing (1) because the evidence failed to show that he had caused an interstate-wire transmission, his wire-fraud convictions could not stand; and (2) the evidence did not show the existence of a coconspirator, so the conspiracy conviction must fail. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed Defendant's convictions, holding (1) because a factfinder could rationally find the use of interstate wires in this case, the evidence was sufficient to uphold Defendant's wire-fraud convictions; and (2) the evidence was sufficient for a sensible factfinder to find that Defendant and a co-conspirator agreed on the essential nature of a wire-fraud conspiracy. View "United States v. Tum" on Justia Law

In 2003, Petitioner pled guilty to conspiracy-to-commit larceny stemming from a scheme in which Petitioner stole from the dorm rooms of his college classmates. At the time, Petitioner was a lawful permanent resident. Consequently, an immigration judge and the board of immigration appeals (BIA) found that Petitioner was removable because his crimes involved "moral turpitude" within the meaning of the Immigration and Nationality Act. The First Circuit Court of Appeals granted Petitioner's petition for review and vacated the BIA's order dismissing Petitioner's appeal, holding that the BIA erred in finding Petitioner removable, as there was no statement in Petitioner's plea colloquy admitting an intent to commit a permanent deprivation. Remanded. View "Patel v. Holder" on Justia Law

In 1989, Appellant was tried and convicted of murder in a Massachusetts state court. After serving fourteen years of his sentence, Appellant moved for a new trial on the ground that exculpatory evidence had been withheld by several Boston police officers involved in his prosecution, including Timothy Callahan, a police detective. Appellant's motion was granted and he was released from prison in 2003. After his release, Appellant filed a civil action in federal district court against Callahan, a Boston police commissioner, two police officers, and the City of Boston, alleging that his constitutional due process rights were violated by the withholding of material exculpatory evidence during his criminal trial. After a jury deadlocked on the issue of whether Callahan's failure to disclose evidence caused Appellant's conviction, a retrial was held. The retrial jury determined in 2009 that Callahan had withheld evidence and determined that his actions caused Appellant's conviction. Appellant was awarded damages of $14 million. The First Circuit Court of Appeals remanded the case to the district court for a new trial, holding that Callahan was entitled to a new trial because the district court judge erred in instructing the retrial jury on causation. View "Drumgold v. Callahan" on Justia Law

In 2008, a federal grand jury indicted co-defendants Carolyn Kravetz and Boris Levitin on charges stemming from a scheme to defraud restaurant franchisor Dunkin' Brands Inc. Defendants pled guilty in February 2010. Jim Edwards, a journalist who specialized in coverage of the advertising industry for Bnet.com, began covering the proceedings in 2009. During the proceedings, Edwards noticed that various documents were filed under seal in the criminal case. Edwards subsequently moved to unseal the documents. Kravetz opposed the motion, and the district court denied the motion. The First Circuit Court of Appeals vacated in part and remanded, holding (1) a presumption of public access attached to Defendants' sentencing memoranda and sentencing letters submitted by third parties on Defendants' behalf; and (2) therefore, the district court was required to state with greater specificity its reasons for denying Edwards' motion to unseal these documents. View "United States v. Kravetz" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of conspiracy to both possess with intent to distribute and to distribute cocaine and attempted possession with intent to distribute cocaine. The convictions stemmed from a reverse sting operation set up by law enforcement authorities in Massachusetts after Appellant talked with an informant in Peru about purchasing cocaine there. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not abuse its discretion in choosing the language for its conspiracy instruction; and (2) the district court did not err in failing to instruct the jury on either affirmative defense of withdrawal or entrapment. View "United States v. Guevara" on Justia Law