Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging that police officers used excessive force when they shot and killed her sixteen-year-old son (Anthony). The district court granted the police officers' motion for summary judgment and dismissed all claims. The officers responded to an activated burglar alarm at a liquor store, were involved in a car chase with Anthony, and when one of the officers exited his vehicle, Anthony drove towards him. The shots were fired at Anthony when he was driving towards one of the officers. The court concluded that a reasonable officer in the same circumstances would have believed that Anthony posed a threat of serious physical harm to the officer when the officer fired the shots. In any event, the officers were entitled to summary judgment based on qualified immunity because they did not violate clearly established law. Plaintiff failed to point to any case that clearly establishes the unconstitutionality of using deadly force to end a car chase that threatened the physical safety of the officers and others in the area. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "McGrath v. Tavares, et al." on Justia Law

Robert George, a criminal-lawyer-turned-criminal, was convicted of money-laundering conspiracy, aiding and abetting money laundering, money laundering, and structuring financial transactions to avoid reporting them. Following the jury verdict, the trial judge sentenced George to forty-two months in prison and ordered George to forfeit his Lexus. The First Circuit affirmed the convictions, sentence, and the forfeiture judgment in all respects, holding (1) the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions; (2) the trial judge did not commit prejudicial evidentiary error in any of the respects alleged by George; (3) there was no error in the sentence imposed; and (4) the evidence sufficed to support the forfeiture. View "United States v. George" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant, who provided tax preparation and filing services, was convicted of ten counts of submitting fraudulent federal tax returns to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the district court did not err by (1) finding that an instruction preventing the jury from considering a co-worker’s criminal conduct as propensity evidence under Fed. R. Evid. 404(b) was harmless error; (2) declining to strike the summary testimony of a certain IRS agent; and (3) refusing to grant Appellant’s motion for acquittal on Count Eight, which involved a tax return filed on behalf of George Melo, pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 29. View "United States v. Ulloa" on Justia Law

Appellant pleaded guilty to 126 counts, spread over two separate indictments, of aiding and abetting others in stealing or knowingly converting postal money orders from the United States Postal Service (USPS). The district court sentenced Appellant to a term of twenty-one months imprisonment. On appeal, Appellant claimed that his sentence was both procedurally and substantively unreasonable. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) the sentencing court did not err in applying the two-level enhancement under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines 2B5.1(b)(2)(A); (2) the sentencing court gave fair and balanced consideration to the sentencing factors limned in 18 U.S.C. 3553(a); and (3) Appellant’s twenty-one month sentence was not substantively unreasonable. View "United States v. Suarez-Gonzalez" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted on three counts of distributing cocaine base. During trial, the court allowed testimony from a cooperating witness who purchased cocaine base from Defendant on three occasions, plus video and audiotapes of those transactions. The First Circuit affirmed the convictions, holding (1) the district court did not commit plain error in allowing the jury to review previously admitted audiotapes and video in the courtroom and in the presence of alternate jurors, the court, and the parties; (2) the district court did not commit plain error in failing to instruct the jury that it could not draw negative inferences from the fact that law enforcement officers possessed photographic images of Defendant; and (3) Defendant’s sentencing as a career offender did not violate the Sixth Amendment prohibition against judicial fact finding. View "United States v. Rodriguez" on Justia Law

A civilian was shot without justification by an on-duty police officer, Javier Pagan-Cruz. Plaintiffs, the victim’s family, filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 against Pagan, his two on-scene colleagues, and five supervisors for violating the victim’s Fourth Amendment rights by causing his wrongful death. The supervisory defendants filed a motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c). The motion was granted in part and denied in part. The district court subsequently granted summary judgment to the supervisory defendants on the remaining claims against them. After a trial, the jury reached a verdict in favor of Plaintiffs against the remaining defendants. The First Circuit affirmed the grant of summary judgment against Plaintiffs’ supervisory liability claims against each of the supervisory defendants, holding that these defendants were not liable in this case under section 1983. View "Ramirez-Lluveras v. Rivera-Merced" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native of Germany, lawfully entered the United States in 1959. In 2004, Petitioner pleaded guilty to possession of child pornography under Connecticut law. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) later concluded that Petitioner was removable for having been convicted of an aggravated felony of child pornography under 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)(I) and 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii). Petitioner petitioned for review, contending the government did not meet its burden of showing that the state conviction fell under the federal statute because the relevant state law of conviction encompassed other conduct. The First Circuit denied Petitioner’s petition for review, holding that Petitioner’s admission in the state proceeding to having images of children “having sex” was sufficient to bring him within the federal statute’s definition of an aggravated felony of child pornography. View "Kaufmann v. Holder" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of distributing cocaine. On appeal, Appellant argued that two instances of prosecutorial misconduct deprived him of a fair trial. The First Circuit affirmed the conviction, holding (1) the prosecutor erred during closing argument rebuttal by offering “overzealous and inappropriate” statements regarding the credibility of the government’s witnesses, thus improperly vouching for the prosecution’s investigation and witnesses; (2) the prosecutor erred during closing arguments by playing an audio recording for the jury that had not been entered into evidence; but (3) neither of the errors affected Appellant’s conviction. View "United States v. Rojas" on Justia Law

In 2011, agents intercepted a call between James Brichetto and a potential customer, Michael Leavitt, in which Leavitt sought to purchase approximately 100 oxycodone pills. Brichetto asked whether Leavitt was with someone else, and Leavitt responded affirmatively. As the conversation wound down, Brichetto and Leavitt agreed to meet in the parking lot of a Walmart store in Scarborough, Maine. Defendant Paul Arnott was a passenger in Leavitt's car. The issues this case presented for the First Circuit's review centered on a court order issued in November 2011, which authorized a wiretap on a cellular telephone in the possession of Brichetto (a suspected drug dealer). Agents pulled Leavitt's car over, and asked the occupants to get out. Agents searched the car and found drugs in the compartment. Defendant would ultimately be arrested on drug charges. After the district court denied his motion for suppression, defendant entered a conditional guilty plea, reserving his right to challenge the suppression ruling. Following the imposition of sentence, defendant acted upon this reservation and appealed. Finding no reversible error, the First Circuit affirmed. View "US v. Arnott" on Justia Law

Appellant was charged with conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute, conspiracy to commit robbery affecting interstate commerce, and felon in possession of a firearm. Appellant subsequently pleaded guilty to all counts. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not abuse its discretion in failing to sua sponte order a hearing on the issue of Appellant’s competency; (2) the district court adequately assessed whether Appellant’s plea was knowing and voluntary within the meaning of Fed. R. Crim. P. 11; (3) Appellant’s counsel did not provide ineffective assistance; and (4) the district court did not err in imposing a ten-year mandatory minimum sentence on the drug conspiracy count. View "United States v. Kenney" on Justia Law