Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

In August 2021, the defendant, along with his brother and another accomplice, committed a series of crimes in Puerto Rico, including two carjackings and an armed robbery. During the first carjacking, a firearm was brandished at the victim, and the group later attempted a second carjacking, which was unsuccessful. That same night, the defendant and another individual robbed a bar, during which the defendant fired a gun both outside and inside the establishment. The defendant was arrested the following day, confessed to the attempted carjacking, and admitted to other criminal conduct that night.A grand jury indicted the defendant on two counts of carjacking and two counts of possession and brandishing a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence. He entered into a plea agreement, pleading guilty to both carjacking counts and one count of possession of a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence. The plea agreement contained errors regarding the total offense level for the carjacking counts and the maximum supervised release term for the firearm count. The presentence report corrected these errors, and neither party objected. At sentencing, the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico imposed sentences above those recommended by the parties, including an upward variance on the firearm count, citing the seriousness of the offenses and the defendant’s conduct.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that, although the defendant was misinformed about the supervised release term for the firearm count at the plea hearing, he was later correctly informed and failed to show a reasonable probability that this error affected his decision to plead guilty. The court also found no Rule 11 error regarding the sentencing range for the carjacking counts and concluded that the upwardly variant sentence for the firearm count was procedurally reasonable. The First Circuit affirmed the conviction and sentence. View "United States v. Morales-Ortiz" on Justia Law

A former college track and field coach used his position to obtain nude and semi-nude photographs from female student-athletes. While coaching at a university, he would ask athletes for their phones under the pretense of filming their form, then search for and secretly send intimate images to himself. After leaving the university, he created anonymous social media accounts to contact former athletes, falsely claiming he found their photos online and offering to help remove them, while actually using the images he had previously stolen. He also created fake online personas to solicit additional images under the guise of a body development study and conspired with others to hack into women’s Snapchat accounts, obtaining more private images. In total, he obtained images from fifty-one women and attempted to obtain them from at least seventy-two others.A grand jury indicted him on multiple counts, including wire fraud, cyberstalking, and computer fraud. He was released pending trial with conditions, but violated them by again soliciting images online. The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts calculated a guideline sentencing range of twenty-seven to thirty-three months, but imposed an upwardly variant sentence of sixty months, citing the number of victims, the nature of the offenses, the abuse of trust, and his conduct while on release. The court rejected the government’s request for an even higher sentence.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the procedural and substantive reasonableness of the sentence. The court held that the district court did not commit procedural error, adequately considered the relevant sentencing factors, and provided a plausible and defensible rationale for the upward variance. The First Circuit affirmed the sixty-month sentence, finding it reasonable in light of the seriousness of the offenses, the impact on the victims, and the risk of recidivism. View "United States v. Waithe" on Justia Law

Dinelson Hernandez-Rodriguez was stopped by a Connecticut state trooper while driving a vehicle that was under surveillance by the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) as part of a lengthy investigation into a Boston-based drug trafficking operation. The DEA had linked the vehicle and its occupants to the transport of cocaine from New York to Boston and the return of drug proceeds to New York. On the day of the stop, DEA agents observed Hernandez-Rodriguez interacting with suspected co-conspirators and driving the vehicle away from a location associated with drug activity. After the stop, a search of the vehicle uncovered $240,240 in a hidden compartment.The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts denied Hernandez-Rodriguez’s motion to suppress the cash, finding that the warrantless search was justified under the automobile exception to the Fourth Amendment because there was probable cause to believe the vehicle contained evidence of a crime. The court found that the DEA’s extensive investigation, surveillance, and intercepted communications provided sufficient grounds for probable cause. Following a jury trial, Hernandez-Rodriguez was convicted of conspiracy to distribute cocaine and sentenced to sixty-eight months in prison.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the district court’s factual findings for clear error and its legal conclusions de novo. The appellate court held that the collective knowledge of the DEA agents, imputed to the state trooper who conducted the stop, established probable cause to search the vehicle under the automobile exception. The court rejected the argument that the search was based on a mere “hunch,” finding that the facts supported a fair probability that evidence of a crime would be found. The First Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of the motion to suppress. View "United States v. Hernandez-Rodriguez" on Justia Law

In February 2023, police officers arrested Charlie Vick for domestic assault and battery involving a firearm. After his arrest, officers discovered that the car he had been driving was uninsured, unregistered, and had invalid license plates. They waited until Vick's uncle attempted to drive the car away and then stopped him shortly after he exited the parking lot. The officers impounded the car and conducted an inventory search, which revealed a gun. Vick was subsequently charged with being a felon in possession of a firearm.The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts ruled that the officers had staged the impounding and that their sole motive for the search was investigatory. Consequently, the court ordered the suppression of the evidence found during the search. The government appealed, arguing that the district court should not have considered the officers' subjective motives and that the court's finding of a sole investigatory motive was clearly erroneous.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case. The court agreed with the government that the district court's finding of a sole investigatory motive was clearly erroneous. The appellate court noted that the officers had an objectively reasonable basis for impounding the car, as it was unregistered, uninsured, and had invalid plates, making it a safety hazard. The court also found that the officers' decision to impound the car was lawful under the community caretaking exception to the Fourth Amendment's warrant and probable cause requirements. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the district court's grant of the motion to suppress and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "US v. Vick" on Justia Law

Two cousins, Jairo Huertas-Mercado and Erick Pizarro-Mercado, were involved in a series of violent crimes in Puerto Rico, including six carjackings and two kidnappings, one of which resulted in death. The crimes occurred between May and June 2018, and involved the use of firearms and threats of violence. The victims included a security guard, a family on a road trip, a surfer, a couple, a churchgoer, and a well-known local singer, Bryant Myers, who was kidnapped along with his mother.The case was first brought to the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico, where Huertas was initially indicted in July 2018. Over time, the indictment was superseded three times, adding more charges and defendants, including Pizarro. The pretrial process was prolonged due to ongoing investigations, plea negotiations, and the COVID-19 pandemic. The death penalty review process also contributed to the delay. Ultimately, the trial began in September 2022, more than four years after the initial indictment.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case. Huertas argued that his constitutional right to a speedy trial was violated due to the 51-month delay between his indictment and trial. The court applied the Barker v. Wingo balancing test and found that while the delay was lengthy, it was justified by valid reasons, including the complexity of the case, the need for thorough investigation, and the impact of the pandemic. Huertas' failure to assert his right to a speedy trial and the lack of demonstrated prejudice to his defense also weighed against him.Both defendants challenged the sufficiency of the evidence for their convictions, particularly the carjacking charges. The court found that the evidence, including witness testimonies and admissions by Huertas, was sufficient to support the jury's verdict. The court also rejected Huertas' double jeopardy claim, noting that the lesser included offense was dismissed before sentencing.Finally, Pizarro's argument that his life sentence was unreasonable was reviewed. The court found that the sentence was within the guideline range and justified by the severity of the crimes, affirming the district court's decision. The appeals court ultimately affirmed the convictions and sentences of both defendants. View "US v. Huertas-Mercado" on Justia Law

In this case, the defendant, a radio talk show host and church founder, began selling bitcoin in 2014. The government investigated his bitcoin sales and charged him with conspiracy to operate an unlicensed money transmitting business, operation of an unlicensed money transmitting business, conspiracy to commit money laundering, money laundering, and tax evasion. After a jury convicted him on all counts, the district court acquitted him of the substantive money laundering count due to insufficient evidence but upheld the other convictions.The defendant appealed, arguing that the district court should not have allowed the money-transmitting-business charges to proceed to trial, citing the "major questions doctrine" which he claimed should exempt virtual currencies like bitcoin from regulatory statutes. He also contended that the evidence was insufficient to support his tax evasion conviction and that he should be granted a new trial on the money laundering conspiracy count due to prejudicial evidentiary spillover. Additionally, he argued that his 96-month sentence was substantively unreasonable.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case. The court rejected the defendant's major questions doctrine argument, holding that the statutory definition of "money transmitting business" under 31 U.S.C. § 5330 includes businesses dealing in virtual currencies like bitcoin. The court found that the plain meaning of "funds" encompasses virtual currencies and that the legislative history and subsequent congressional actions supported this interpretation.The court also found sufficient evidence to support the tax evasion conviction, noting that the defendant had substantial unreported income and engaged in conduct suggesting willful evasion of taxes. The court rejected the claim of prejudicial spillover, concluding that the evidence related to the money laundering conspiracy was admissible and relevant.Finally, the court upheld the 96-month sentence, finding it substantively reasonable given the defendant's conduct and the factors considered by the district court. The court affirmed the district court's rulings and the defendant's convictions and sentence. View "United States v. Freeman" on Justia Law

From 1990 to 1999, Patrick Rose, Sr., a Boston Police Department (BPD) officer, sexually abused two children, John and Jane Doe. Rose pled guilty to 21 counts of child rape and sexual assault in April 2022. The Does, now adults, sued Rose, the BPD, and other defendants involved in the investigation and response to their abuse allegations, claiming the defendants deprived them of their Fourteenth Amendment right to bodily integrity by enhancing the danger from Rose's abuse.The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts dismissed the case before discovery, concluding that the defendants could not be held responsible under the state-created danger doctrine because the Does did not sufficiently allege that the defendants' actions enhanced Rose's abuse and caused them harm. The court also dismissed the Does' remaining claims.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit vacated the district court's decision regarding the Does' Fourteenth Amendment claims. The appellate court concluded that the Does plausibly alleged that some of the defendants' actions enhanced the danger to them, meeting the first requirement of the state-created danger test. The court remanded the case for the district court to evaluate those actions under the test's remaining requirements. The appellate court also vacated the dismissal of the claims against the City of Boston and the DCF defendants, allowing the Does to address those claims. However, the appellate court affirmed the dismissal of the Does' § 1985 claims, agreeing with the district court that the Does failed to allege membership in a protected class or class-based discrimination. View "Doe v. City of Boston" on Justia Law

Three appellants, Anthony Rivera-Rivera, Victor M. Hernández-Carrasquillo, and Jimmy Ríos-Alvarez, were convicted of armed carjacking and using a firearm in a crime of violence. They were part of a group that committed a violent home invasion targeting a family. During the invasion, the group assaulted the family members, causing serious injuries, and stole valuables. Two members of the group took the family's car to withdraw money from an ATM, while the appellants stayed behind to guard the family.The United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico held a joint trial for the appellants. The jury found them guilty on both counts. The appellants filed motions for judgment of acquittal, which the court denied, concluding that the government had presented sufficient evidence for a rational factfinder to find each appellant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Rivera and Hernández also filed motions to dismiss the indictment due to delayed Brady disclosures, which the court denied. Additionally, Rivera and Hernández sought severance from Ríos to call him as a witness, but the court denied this motion as well.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the convictions, finding sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdicts. The court held that the appellants had knowledge of the carjacking and took affirmative acts to further the crime. The court also found no abuse of discretion in the district court's denial of the motions to dismiss the indictment and for severance. The court rejected Rivera's Confrontation Clause claims and upheld the sentences for Rivera and Hernández, finding them procedurally and substantively reasonable. View "United States v. Rivera-Rivera" on Justia Law

On December 15, 2021, Nashalie Rodríguez-Bermúdez was charged with possession with intent to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine and conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute the same. Rodríguez entered a straight plea on July 7, 2022, and was sentenced by the federal District Court for the District of Puerto Rico on March 3, 2023, to 46 months of incarceration with five years of supervised release. Rodríguez appealed the sentence, arguing that the district court erred in its sentencing process.The District Court for the District of Puerto Rico received a presentence investigation report (PSR) and sentencing memoranda from both the defense and the government. The PSR recommended a four-point minimal participant adjustment, resulting in a Guidelines range of 46 to 57 months. The defense argued for a time-served sentence, while the government recommended 57 months, or alternatively, 48 months. During the sentencing hearing, the district court declined to definitively determine the applicable Guidelines range, stating that the sentence would be the same regardless of whether Rodríguez was a minimal participant.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case and found that the district court committed procedural error by failing to adequately explain why the 46-month sentence was appropriate irrespective of the applicable Guidelines range. The appellate court noted that the district court's reliance on the high end of the defense's proposed Guidelines range without a clear explanation of how the other § 3553(a) factors supported the sentence was insufficient. Consequently, the First Circuit vacated the sentence and remanded the case for resentencing, emphasizing the need for a clear and adequate explanation for the chosen sentence. View "United States v. Rodriguez-Bermudez" on Justia Law

Between February 2014 and December 2015, United States Postal Inspection Service (USPIS) agents in Puerto Rico identified a pattern of suspicious packages being sent between Puerto Rico and New York. Upon inspection, these packages were found to contain cocaine and large sums of money concealed in household items. The investigation led to Miguel A. Reyes-Ballista (Reyes) and two co-conspirators. Reyes was indicted and, after a six-day trial, a jury convicted him of participating in two conspiracies to possess with intent to distribute cocaine and three counts of possession with intent to distribute cocaine.Reyes was sentenced to 170 months in prison with four years of supervised release. He appealed his convictions, arguing that the government provided insufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict. Reyes also sought a new trial, claiming ineffective assistance of counsel due to inadequate communication with his attorney and poor performance at trial, which he argued violated his Sixth Amendment right to counsel.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that the evidence presented at trial, including testimony from co-conspirators, surveillance footage, and fingerprint evidence, was sufficient to support Reyes's convictions for conspiracy. The court noted that Reyes's arguments regarding the credibility of witnesses and the lack of direct evidence placing him inside the post office did not undermine the jury's verdict. The court also dismissed Reyes's Sixth Amendment claim as premature, indicating that such claims are typically better suited for collateral proceedings where a more developed record can be established.The First Circuit affirmed Reyes's convictions and dismissed his Sixth Amendment claim without prejudice, allowing him the opportunity to raise the issue in a future collateral proceeding. View "United States v. Reyes-Ballista" on Justia Law