Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Following a bench trial, Appellant was convicted of thirteen counts for crimes involving child pornography. Appellant appealed, challenging various rulings rulings by the district court before and after the trial. This case presented complex questions of first impression in the First Circuit regarding the admissibility of evidence in the wake of the Supreme Court's recent Confrontation Clause jurisprudence. After careful review, the First Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that the admission of certain evidence violated Appellant's Confrontation Clause rights, and the admission of this evidence was harmless as to some counts of conviction but not as to others. The Court thus reversed Appellant's convictions on certain counts and remanded for resentencing or a new trial. View "United States v. Cameron" on Justia Law

Appellant, a federal prisoner, appealed from the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. 2255 petition, which was largely focused on a variety of ineffective assistance of counsel claims. Appellant also appealed from the court's denial, as untimely, of his second motion to amend the petition. Appellant asserted on appeal that the second motion to amend was timely and that he should have been allowed to pursue a claim that he was improperly subject to sentencing as an armed career criminal because one prior offense was not a predicate in light of Johnson v. United States. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed both decisions, holding (1) the second motion to amend did not raise an independent Johnson theory and thus the claim was forfeited; and (2) the second motion to amend was untimely. View "Turner v. United States" on Justia Law

Defendant defrauded a number of investors in a series of schemes that used the mails. All told, investors lost about six million dollars. Defendant also laundered money he received from the fraud by buying himself a $180,000 sport car. A federal jury convicted Defendant of seven counts of mail fraud and one count of money laundering. Defendant was sentenced to 192 months imprisonment and ordered to pay $6,030,145 in restitution and to forfeit certain property. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed Defendant's convictions, denied his request for a new trial, and affirmed his sentence, holding (1) because the only identified error in evidentiary rulings was harmless, Defendant was not entitled to a new trial on the basis of cumulative error; and (2) the district court correctly calculated the number of victims and the amounts of forfeiture and of restitution. View "United States v. DeSimone" on Justia Law

Appellant was indicted in federal district court on two counts of being a felon in possession of firearms and ammunition. Appellant moved to suppress the ammunition as well as inculpatory statements he made in connection with his arrest. After an evidentiary hearing, the district court denied the motion. Appellant subsequently entered a conditional guilty plea on both counts, reserving his right to appeal the denial of his suppression motion. Appellant then appealed. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the district court properly declined to grant Appellant's suppression motion, as the stop that led to the discovery of the ammunition (1) was justified at its inception and did not constitute an unlawful seizure, and (2) was not transformed into a de facto arrest requiring Miranda warnings. View "United States v. Rabbia" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty in Massachusetts federal district court to five counts of crack cocaine distribution and one count of conspiracy to distribute. Defendant was sentenced to 121 months in prison and appealed to challenge the sentence. Specifically, Defendant challenged the quantity of drugs attributed to him. The First Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the sentence and remanded for re-sentencing, holding (1) it was not clear error to conclude that Defendant's then-current and ongoing drug operation included at least one 152-gram purchase; but (2) the finding of two such 152-gram acquisitions, which triggered a mandatory minimum sentence in addition to greatly enlarging the recommended guideline sentence, was error. View "United States v. Marquez" on Justia Law

A jury convicted Defendant of participating in an oxycodone distribution conspiracy, and he received a sentence of 210 months. On appeal, Defendant raised several challenges to his conviction and sentence, the most important of which was that the district court erred in refusing to suppress evidence that Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) agents obtained from Defendant's cellular telephone, without a warrant, two weeks after they seized the phone. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) any error on the suppression issue was harmless, and therefore the Court did not need to address whether the agents' activity was lawful under the Fourth Amendment; and (2) Green's other claims also lacked merit. View "United States v. Green" on Justia Law

Appellant sought review of his conviction on a charge of conspiracy to collect debts by extortionate means and collection of debts by extortionate means. On appeal, Appellant claimed (1) the trial was tainted by the trial judge's rulings relating to allegations of juror taint and by supposed mistakes in the judge's instructions - or failure to give instructions - to the jury; (2) the district court erred in instructing the jury on the elements of extortionate debt collection; and (3) the district court failed sua sponte to instruct the jury to disregard a specific sidebar exchange that Appellant claimed the jury overheard. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that all of Appellant's claims failed on the merits. View "United States v. Dehertogh" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Jamaica, was convicted of illicit trafficking - an aggravated felony - and also of an offense under a state law relating to a controlled substance. The Department of Homeland Security began removal proceedings against Petitioner based on these offenses. Petitioner filed a responsive pleading seeking to terminate the removal proceedings or, in the alternative, to cancel removal. An immigration judge (IJ) denied Petitioner's motion to terminate and ordered Petitioner to be removed to Jamaica. The board of immigration appeals (BIA) affirmed. The First Circuit Court of Appeals denied Petitioner's petition for review, holding that Petitioner pled to possessing a controlled substance with intent to sell in violation of Conn. Gen. Stat. Ann. 21a-277(b), that the offense was a subordinate offense constituting "trafficking," and therefore, Petitioner was convicted of drug trafficking as defined by federal law. View "James v. Holder" on Justia Law

In 2010, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) began removal proceedings under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) against Petitioner. The notice asserted that Petitioner was removable on three separate grounds - child abuse, crime of violence, and sexual abuse of a minor. An immigration judge (IJ) ruled that Petitioner was removable on all three grounds asserted by DHS, and that, as an aggravated felon, Petitioner was ineligible for cancellation of removal. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed. At issue was whether the endangerment offense to which Petitioner pled nolo contendere comprised an aggravated felony sexual abuse offense for purposes of the INA. The First Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the BIA's ruling insofar as it held that Petitioner was removable on the grounds that he was convicted of aggravated felony sexual abuse and that he was therefore ineligible for cancellation of removal, as Petitioner could not be held to have pled to an offense that fell within the sexual abuse rubric under the INA. View "Campbell v. Holder" on Justia Law

Appellant was convicted for traveling in interstate commerce and then knowingly failing to update his sex offender registration at his destination as required by the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA). The district court sentenced Appellant to thirty-five months' imprisonment consecutive to his state sentence for violating probation by failing to update his Massachusetts sex offender registration. Appellant appealed his conviction and sentence, arguing, inter alia, that SORNA's registration requirements impermissibly increased his punishment for his earlier sexual offenses. SORNA was enacted in 2006. Appellant's previous offenses took place in 1990 and 1996. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) SORNA does not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause; (2) SORNA does not reach beyond the limits of Congress' power under the Commerce Clause; (3) SORNA as applied to Appellant did not violate Appellant's due process rights; and (4) the district court did not abuse its discretion in deciding to make Appellant's sentence consecutive to, rather than concurrent with, his thirty-month sentence. View "United States v. Parks" on Justia Law