Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

A political news producer in Puerto Rico contacted a senior government official, warning that the son of the Treasury Secretary possessed damaging chat messages about the administration and might release them unless political attacks on his father ceased. The producer and the official met twice; the producer described a binder of messages and relayed demands for $300,000, renewal of two government contracts, and payments to media personalities in exchange for withholding the chats and favorable coverage. After the chats were leaked, resulting in political turmoil and resignations, the official became a confidential FBI source, recorded a second meeting, and collaborated with agents. The producer later deleted relevant messaging records from the official's phone during an FBI interview.The United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico held a jury trial. The jury convicted the producer on three counts: attempted extortion under the Hobbs Act (18 U.S.C. § 1951), transmitting a threatening communication with intent to extort (18 U.S.C. § 875(d)), and destruction of records in a federal investigation (18 U.S.C. § 1519). The defendant moved for acquittal and a new trial, arguing insufficient evidence, prosecutorial misconduct, and errors in jury instructions. The district court denied these motions and sentenced him to fifty-one months in prison.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed sufficiency of the evidence and the alleged procedural errors. It held that the evidence was sufficient for all counts, including proof of wrongful threats and intent to extort, and that the government did not commit prosecutorial misconduct or Brady violations. The court found no reversible error in the jury instructions or limitations on cross-examination and affirmed the convictions in full. View "United States v. Diaz-Colon" on Justia Law

Two Massachusetts State Police officers, Lieutenant Daniel Griffin and Sergeant William Robertson, were implicated in a years-long scheme involving fraudulent overtime billing between 2015 and 2017. Both routinely claimed pay for hours they did not work, either by arriving late, leaving early, or “double-dipping” by billing overtime for tasks performed during regular hours. They also encouraged subordinates to engage in the same practices. The overtime funds in question were supplied through federal grants meant to support highway safety initiatives. In addition to the overtime fraud, Griffin separately engaged in wire fraud relating to private school financial aid and tax fraud connected to a private security business.The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts presided over a jury trial, which resulted in convictions for both defendants on all counts related to wire fraud, theft of federal funds, and conspiracy. Griffin pled guilty to additional charges of wire fraud and tax falsification before trial. Sentences were imposed: Griffin received 60 months’ imprisonment, three years’ supervised release, substantial restitution, and forfeiture; Robertson received 36 months’ imprisonment, three years’ supervised release, joint and several liability for restitution, and forfeiture.Upon appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, the court reviewed a broad array of challenges. The First Circuit largely affirmed the convictions, sentences, and restitution orders. It found no reversible error in the district court’s handling of the constitutional challenge, sufficiency of the evidence, guidelines calculations, sentencing disparities, and restitution. However, the Circuit Court vacated and remanded the forfeiture order against Griffin, holding that the government failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the full amount of financial aid received was “traceable to” fraud, as required by statute. All other aspects of the district court’s judgment were affirmed. View "United States v. Robertson" on Justia Law

A man was indicted for unlawful possession of a firearm and ammunition by a felon after Boston police discovered a loaded pistol under the front passenger seat of a car in which he was seated. The discovery occurred shortly after a drive-by shooting in the area, though later evidence showed the car was not involved in the shooting. Video evidence and police testimony established that the man exclusively occupied the front passenger seat from the time the car arrived at a market until the stop, wore a latex glove on his right hand, and repeatedly bent toward the floor mat area where the pistol was found. No fingerprints were found on the firearm, magazine, or ammunition.The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts denied the defendant’s motions for judgment of acquittal and for a new trial. The motions argued the evidence was insufficient to prove possession and that the government’s references to the nearby shooting were prejudicial. The court found that, viewed in the light most favorable to the government, the circumstantial evidence—including the glove, the exclusive control over the seat, and his actions toward the floor—was sufficient for a reasonable jury to find constructive possession beyond a reasonable doubt.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the evidence supported the jury’s verdict of constructive possession under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). The appellate court affirmed that the district court correctly denied both the judgment of acquittal and the new trial motion, finding no miscarriage of justice or erroneous result. The court also affirmed the revocation of the defendant’s supervised release, as the evidence met the preponderance standard. The convictions and the revocation of supervised release were affirmed. View "United States v. Abercrombie" on Justia Law

In March 1997, James Garrey was involved in a fatal altercation at a bar in Franklin, Massachusetts, where he stabbed and killed Corey Skog following a dispute. Garrey, who is white, was later convicted of first-degree murder by a Massachusetts jury and sentenced to life imprisonment. During jury selection, the prosecution exercised a peremptory strike to remove a minority-race juror, Juror 6-7. Garrey objected, arguing the strike was improper and motivated by race, referencing Batson v. Kentucky and Powers v. Ohio. The trial judge allowed the strike after the prosecutor cited the juror’s occupation as a guidance counselor as the reason, not her race.Garrey appealed his conviction to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC), asserting that the trial judge erred by accepting the prosecutor’s justification and by referencing the lack of minority participants in the trial. The SJC affirmed the conviction, finding the prosecutor’s explanation sufficient and not pretextual, and that the trial judge did not improperly rely on racial considerations. Garrey’s subsequent motions for a new trial in state court were denied.He then petitioned the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts for habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, alleging Batson and Powers errors and unreasonable factual findings by the SJC. The District Court denied relief, concluding the SJC’s application of federal law and findings were not unreasonable.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case de novo and affirmed the District Court. The First Circuit held that the SJC did not unreasonably determine the facts or misapply clearly established federal law under Batson or Powers, and found the prosecutor’s rationale and the trial court’s process constitutionally sufficient. The judgment denying habeas relief was affirmed. View "Garrey v. Kelly" on Justia Law

The case concerns an engineer who worked for a microchip design company. While employed, he downloaded proprietary design files, including a file for a microchip known as the HMC1022A, and retained them after leaving his employer. Shortly after his departure, he started a competing business that marketed and sold microchips bearing strong similarities to his former employer’s products, using some of the appropriated design files in the manufacturing process. He concealed the origins of these files by renaming them and sought to keep his new business secret from his former employer.A federal grand jury indicted him on a range of charges, including possession of stolen trade secrets, wire fraud, export violations, visa fraud, and unlawful procurement of citizenship. The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts presided over the jury trial. The defendant was convicted on only one count: unlawful possession of a trade secret, specifically the design layout and GDS file for the HMC1022A microchip. He was acquitted of all other charges, and the court dismissed related charges against his business partner and spouse. Post-trial, the defendant moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing selective enforcement and prosecution on the basis of his Chinese ethnicity, but the district court denied these motions.Upon review, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the conviction. The court held that there was sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to find that the file in question was both a trade secret and that the defendant knew it to be so. The court also affirmed the district court’s rejection of the selective prosecution and enforcement claims, determining that the defendant had not shown similarly situated individuals of a different race were treated differently, nor that the investigation or prosecution was motivated by discriminatory purpose. The conviction and sentence were therefore upheld. View "United States v. Yu" on Justia Law

A medical device company that manufactures spinal devices was indicted, along with its CEO and CFO, for allegedly paying bribes to surgeons through a sham consulting program in violation of the Anti-Kickback Statute. The indictment claimed the surgeons did not provide bona fide consulting services, but were paid to use and order the company’s devices in surgeries covered by federal health care programs. The company’s CFO, who is not a shareholder but is one of only two officers, allegedly calculated these payments based on the volume and value of surgeries performed with the company’s devices. During the development of the consulting program, the company retained outside counsel to provide legal opinions on the agreements’ compliance with health care law, and those opinions were distributed to the surgeons.After the grand jury returned the indictment, the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts addressed whether the CFO’s plan to argue at trial that the involvement of outside counsel negated his criminal intent would effect an implied waiver of the company’s attorney-client privilege. The district court initially found that if the CFO or CEO invoked an “involvement-of-counsel” defense, it would waive the corporation’s privilege over communications with counsel. Following dismissal of charges against the company, the district court focused on whether the officers collectively could waive the privilege, concluded they could, and ruled that the CFO’s planned defense would constitute an implied waiver, allowing disclosure of certain privileged communications to the government. The district court stayed its order pending appeal.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit vacated the district court’s waiver order and remanded. The Court of Appeals held that (1) the record was insufficient to determine whether the CFO alone had authority to waive the company’s privilege, and (2) not every involvement-of-counsel defense necessitates a waiver. The appellate court directed the district court to reassess the issue in light of changed circumstances and to consider less intrusive remedies before finding an implied waiver. View "United States v. SpineFrontier, Inc." on Justia Law

The defendant participated in two robberies of massage businesses in Massachusetts, roughly an hour apart, alongside two co-defendants. During both incidents, firearms were displayed and used to intimidate victims, and in the course of the robberies, the victims were physically restrained and money and phones were stolen. After the crimes, the defendant was apprehended, and the investigation linked him and his co-defendants to the robberies through various forms of evidence, including testimony from an accomplice and the victims.Following his arrest, the defendant pled guilty in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts to two counts of Hobbs Act robbery and aiding and abetting. At sentencing, the district court applied enhancements to his guideline offense level based on findings that firearms were possessed and otherwise used during the robberies, and that the use of firearms by the co-defendants was reasonably foreseeable to the defendant. The court relied on the presentence investigation report, testimony from a co-defendant’s trial over which the same judge presided, and other evidence. The defendant objected to the enhancements, arguing the government had not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that use of firearms was foreseeable and that the weapons were real firearms as defined by the guidelines.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the appeal, applying an abuse of discretion standard to procedural challenges and clear error to factual findings. The court held that the district court did not clearly err in finding it was reasonably foreseeable to the defendant that firearms would be possessed and otherwise used during the robberies, nor in concluding that real firearms were involved. The court found the evidence sufficient to support both enhancements and affirmed the defendant’s 78-month sentence. View "United States v. Tang" on Justia Law

Federal law enforcement agents, posing as a 14-year-old girl named "Rolianas," engaged in online communications with the defendant, who responded to an ad the agents posted on a casual encounters section of Craigslist. Over a series of emails, texts, and phone calls spanning several days, the defendant initiated and sustained contact, despite being told early in the exchange that "Rolianas" was 14. He sent sexually suggestive messages and photos and made plans to meet, including discussions of sexual activity and bringing condoms.The United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico conducted a jury trial, where the defendant was convicted of attempted transportation of a minor for criminal sexual activity under 18 U.S.C. § 2423(a) but acquitted of attempted sexual enticement of a minor under 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b). The defendant requested a jury instruction on the entrapment defense, arguing that the government induced him to commit the offense. The district judge denied that request, concluding that the defendant had not met the threshold of producing evidence of both government inducement and lack of predisposition.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed de novo whether the district court erred in refusing the entrapment instruction. The court found that the government’s conduct did not rise to the level of inducement, as the agents merely provided an opportunity for the defendant to commit the crime, and the defendant pursued the illegal activity after being informed of the purported minor’s age. The court held that the evidence did not support the defense of entrapment and affirmed the conviction, concluding that the district judge properly denied the entrapment instruction. View "United States v. Medina-Ortiz" on Justia Law

Craig Medoff, after a history of violating federal securities laws and failing to comply with prior court orders and penalties, was subject to a 2016 consent judgment in the District of Massachusetts that barred him and any entity he controlled from participating in the issuance, offer, or sale of any security for ten years. Despite this, Medoff continued to control Nova Capital International LLC and engaged in securities-related activities, using an alias and receiving substantial fees in violation of the judgment. The SEC initiated civil contempt proceedings, but the district court, concerned about the futility of further civil sanctions given Medoff’s history and financial situation, instead initiated criminal contempt proceedings under 18 U.S.C. § 401(3) and Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 42(a).The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts appointed the U.S. Attorney to prosecute the criminal contempt case. Medoff’s counsel moved for the judge’s recusal under 28 U.S.C. § 455(a), arguing that the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned due to his comments and conduct during the proceedings. The district court denied the recusal motion, finding no reasonable basis for doubting its impartiality, and proceeded with the criminal case. Medoff ultimately pleaded guilty to criminal contempt and was sentenced to twenty months in prison, a variance above the guideline range, and thirty-six months of supervised release, along with a fine.On appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, Medoff challenged the denial of the recusal motion and the reasonableness of his sentence. The First Circuit held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying recusal, as the judge’s actions did not display deep-seated antagonism or favoritism. The court also found the sentence both procedurally and substantively reasonable, affirming the district court’s judgment. View "United States v. Medoff" on Justia Law

Gerardo Martinez was convicted of first-degree murder in Rhode Island for the 2005 killing of Lindsay Ann Burke, with evidence at trial showing a troubled relationship and a violent altercation that ended in Lindsay’s death by stabbing. Martinez’s defense attorney, Mark Smith, obtained a PTSD diagnosis from a forensic psychiatrist but chose not to present this expert testimony at trial. Instead, Smith argued that Martinez lacked premeditation and should be convicted of second-degree murder. The jury found Martinez guilty of first-degree murder, and he was sentenced to life without parole. On direct appeal, the Rhode Island Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and sentence.Martinez then sought post-conviction relief in the Rhode Island Superior Court, claiming ineffective assistance of counsel for Smith’s decision not to present the PTSD-based diminished capacity defense at trial. After a three-day evidentiary hearing, the Superior Court found that Smith’s choices were strategic and not constitutionally deficient, and therefore did not address the issue of prejudice. The Rhode Island Supreme Court denied Martinez’s petition for writ of certiorari. Martinez subsequently filed a federal habeas petition in the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island, which was dismissed, but a certificate of appealability was granted.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed whether the Rhode Island court’s denial of post-conviction relief was an “unreasonable application” of Strickland v. Washington under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). The First Circuit held that the state court’s decision was reasonable, emphasizing the strategic nature of Smith’s choices and the deference required under federal habeas review. The court affirmed the district court’s dismissal of Martinez’s habeas petition, finding no constitutional deficiency in counsel’s performance. View "Martinez v. Salisbury" on Justia Law