Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Appellant entered a guilty plea to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute various controlled substances, including crack cocaine, and conspiracy to possess firearms in furtherance of a drug-trafficking crime. On July 27, 2010, the district court sentenced Appellant to a 150-month incarcerative term. On August 3, 2010, Congress enacted the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 (FSA), which gave the Sentencing Commission emergency authority to lower the guideline penalties for crack cocaine offenses. The Commission promulgated the new guideline amendments, which ensured that the lowered guideline ranges would for the most part be available for retroactive application. In anticipation of the November 1, 2011 effective date, Appellant filed a motion for a sentence reduction. The district court declined to reduce the sentence "in the exercise of its discretion." The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the catalogued factors plainly indicated that the court gave individualized consideration to Appellant's situation and had specific - and not unreasonable - grounds for denying a sentence reduction. View "United States v. Aponte-Guzman" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted after a jury trial of producing, and aiding and abetting in the production of, a visual depiction of a minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct using materials mailed, shipped, or transported in interstate or foreign commerce. Defendant appealed, asserting that the Government's proof as to the crime's jurisdictional element - i.e, that the materials were part of foreign or interstate commerce - rested on inadmissible hearsay, which violated his right to confrontation under the Sixth Amendment. Defendant argued that the testimony of the Government's witness regarding the origin of a hard drive and webcam constituted inadmissible hearsay because it relied on statements contained in the labels affixed to the same. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed Defendant's conviction, holding that the trial court did not plainly err in admitting the disputed testimony, as the witness could have relied on his own expert knowledge rather than the labels in forming an opinion about the objects' origin. View "United States v. Acevedo-Maldonado" on Justia Law

A federal grand jury in the district of Maine handed up an indictment that charged an elementary-school music teacher with two counts of transporting a minor with intent to engage in criminal sexual activity. After a bench trial, the district court found the teacher guilty and imposed a twelve-year incarcerative sentence. The teacher appealed, arguing, among other things, that the district court improperly admitted evidence of his contact with the victim during a bus trip and his inappropriate conduct with another young girl. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) Defendant forfeited his Fed. R. Evid. 404(b) claim of error; (2) the district court afforded Defendant a reasonable opportunity to cross-examine a government witness; and (3) Defendant's sentence was substantively reasonable. View "United States v. Raymond" on Justia Law

A federal grand jury in the district of Maine handed up an indictment that charged an elementary-school music teacher with two counts of transporting a minor with intent to engage in criminal sexual activity. After a bench trial, the district court found the teacher guilty and imposed a twelve-year incarcerative sentence. The teacher appealed, arguing, among other things, that the district court improperly admitted evidence of his contact with the victim during a bus trip and his inappropriate conduct with another young girl. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) Defendant forfeited his Fed. R. Evid. 404(b) claim of error; (2) the district court afforded Defendant a reasonable opportunity to cross-examine a government witness; and (3) Defendant's sentence was substantively reasonable. View "United States v. Raymond" on Justia Law

After a jury trial in the United States district court, Appellant, an attorney, was convicted on bribery, extortion, and conspiracy charges stemming from his involvement in a scheme to purchase the votes of three corrupt town councilmen on two zoning matters. During the trial, the district court admitted into evidence under Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2)(E) a number of recorded statements about Appellant made by one of the councilmen to a government informant. On appeal, Appellant argued that some of these statements should have been excluded as hearsay, and challenged the admission of all the statements on constitutional grounds under the Confrontation Clause. Appellant also claimed the district court erred in calculating his sentence under the United States Sentencing Guidelines. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not clearly err in admitting the challenged statements; and (2) the sentence imposed was appropriate. View "United States v. Ciresi" on Justia Law

Appellant Juan Colon-Rodriguez was convicted in 2009 on twelve counts of making false statements on Farm Service Agency (FSA) loan applications and one count of defrauding a financial institution. The district sentenced Appellant to thirty-seven months' imprisonment on each count, to be served concurrently. The First Circuit Court of Appeals (1) affirmed two of the challenged convictions, holding that the evidence was sufficient to support these convictions; (2) vacated the third challenged conviction, holding that no rational jury could have concluded that the government proved all elements of this offense beyond a reasonable doubt; and (3) affirmed the sentence, holding that the sentence was substantively reasonable. View "United States v. Colon-Rodriguez" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted, after a four-day trial, of attempting to kill a federal witness with intent to prevent testimony and communication with law enforcement. Defendant was sentenced to 360 months' imprisonment. Defendant appealed, challenging several of the district court's evidentiary rulings and asserting that the prosecution's allegedly improper closing argument severely prejudiced his case. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, holding (1) the district court did not err in admitting certain documents and testimony at trial; and (2) statements made by the prosecutor in rebuttal to defense counsel's closing argument, though perhaps improper, did not amount to plain error. View "United States v. Watson" on Justia Law

Appellants were players in the Boston real estate market. Along with six coconspirators, Appellants devised and executed a mortgage fraud scheme which netted them illegal profits of nearly $2 million between May 2005 and June 2006. Appellants and their coconspirators were found guilty of one count of conspiring to commit wire fraud and with multiple counts of committing wire fraud. In addition, two defendants were found guilty of multiple counts of money laundering. The First Circuit Court Court of Appeals affirmed Appellants' convictions and sentences, holding, inter alia, (1) there was sufficient evidence to support Appellants' convictions; (2) the district court did not err by admitting into evidence four charts summarizing the financial data in this case; (3) the district court did not err in instructing the jury that it had a duty to return a guilty verdict if it concluded that the government had proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt; and (4) there was no error in the district court's loss calculation methodology and none in its mathematical application of this methodology.

At issue on this appeal was whether a petition for habeas corpus was timely filed within the one-year limitations period provided by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA). The district court found that Petitioner filed his petition within the one-year window because the running of the limitations period was tolled by proceedings in Massachusetts state court. However, the court rejected the petition on its merits. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's judgment, albeit on different grounds, holding that Petitioner's petition was filed well outside of AEDPA's one-year limitations period.

The government charged Defendant with one count of interfering with the operation of an aircraft with reckless disregard for human life and one count of making false statements. After a jury trial, the jury found Defendant guilty as charged. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed Defendant's conviction under 18 U.S.C. 1001, vacated Defendant's conviction under 18 U.S.C. 32(a)(5), and remanded, holding (1) the evidence was sufficient to support Defendant's conviction, as the government proved all the elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt; and (2) a jury instruction erroneously diluted the mens rea requirement of section 32(a)(5), and the error was not harmless.