Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

In this case, the defendant, a local attorney, was contracted by Theory Wellness, a marijuana dispensary operator, to assist in obtaining a host community agreement from the City of Medford, Massachusetts. Instead of legitimate lobbying, the defendant attempted to bribe Medford's chief of police through the chief's brother. This led to the defendant's convictions on two counts of honest-services wire fraud and one count of federal programs bribery.The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts presided over the trial, where a jury convicted the defendant on all counts. The defendant was sentenced to concurrent twenty-four-month terms of imprisonment. The defendant appealed, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence, the admission of certain testimony, and the jury instructions.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case. The court vacated the honest-services wire fraud convictions, finding that the district court erroneously admitted the only evidence establishing the jurisdictional element of those counts. However, the court affirmed the federal programs bribery conviction, concluding that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's finding that the defendant intended to bribe the chief of police.The court held that the defendant's actions constituted a bribery scheme under 18 U.S.C. § 666, even if the defendant did not believe the chief had accepted the bribe. The court also found that the district court's failure to instruct the jury on the requirement of an "official act" was harmless, as the evidence overwhelmingly supported the conclusion that the defendant sought official acts from the chief. The court rejected the defendant's entrapment defense, finding no improper inducement by the government and that the defendant was predisposed to commit the crime. View "United States v. O'Donovan" on Justia Law

On June 1, 2021, two masked men, later identified as Hall and Medina, abducted a U.S. postal worker at gunpoint to interrogate him about a package with missing contents, which was found to contain illicit drugs. During an undercover operation, law enforcement arrested Hall, Garay, and Medina while they attempted to collect other drug-laden packages. Officers seized five telephones from the defendants and obtained search warrants for the phones' contents and historical cell site location information (CSLI) for two defendants. A federal grand jury indicted the defendants on charges including kidnapping, conspiracy, and drug possession.The U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island found the warrants lacked probable cause due to missing referenced exhibits in the applications and suppressed the evidence. The court also rejected the government's argument that the good faith exception from United States v. Leon should apply, leading to the current appeal.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case and concluded that the officer executing the warrants acted in good faith. The court noted that the officer, Inspector Atwood, had no reason to believe the affidavits were not attached and relied reasonably on the USAO to file the applications correctly. The court distinguished this case from United States v. Sheehan, emphasizing that the incorporation language was explicit and the error was not systemic but isolated. Consequently, the First Circuit vacated the suppression order and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "United States v. Medina" on Justia Law

Dario Giambro was convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) for being a felon in possession of a firearm. The conviction stemmed from evidence found by police officers who forcibly entered his home in Hebron, Maine, without a warrant. The officers entered the home based on information from Giambro's son, Antonio, who reported that his mother, Arline, had died and was not in the house. Giambro argued that the warrantless entry violated his Fourth Amendment rights and that the evidence should be suppressed. He also challenged the charge on Second Amendment grounds.The United States District Court for the District of Maine denied Giambro's motion to suppress, ruling that the entry fell within the emergency aid exception to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement. The court found that the officers had an objectively reasonable basis to believe that Arline might be in need of immediate aid, despite Antonio's report that she had died and was not in the house. The court also denied Giambro's motion to dismiss the charge on Second Amendment grounds.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case and disagreed with the district court's application of the emergency aid exception. The appellate court held that the officers did not have an objectively reasonable basis to believe that Arline was alive and in need of immediate aid, given that Antonio had been in the house that morning and reported that she was not there. The court emphasized that the officers should have spoken to Antonio and Giambro, who were available for questioning, before forcibly entering the home. Consequently, the First Circuit reversed the district court's denial of the motion to suppress, vacated Giambro's conviction and sentence, and remanded the case for further proceedings. The court did not address the Second Amendment claim due to its ruling on the Fourth Amendment issue. View "United States v. Giambro" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant’s sentence for the crime of possession of stolen government property with intent to convert. The district court imposed an above-the-range sentence of thirty months’ imprisonment. The First Circuit held (1) the district court did not clearly err in refusing to find that Defendant’s criminal conduct was attributable to his substance abuse; (2) the district court made no finding that the offensive conduct involved identity fraud; (3) the district court adequately explained its reasons for imposing an upwardly variant sentence; and (4) Defendant’s sentence was substantively reasonable. View "United States v. Fields" on Justia Law

After a trial, Defendant was convicted of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and possession with intent to distribute at least fifteen kilograms but less than fifteen kilograms of cocaine. On appeal, Defendant argued that the evidence was insufficient to support his conspiracy conviction and that there were trial irregularities and errors. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) because the entire drug deal was captured on video and audio showing Defendant inspecting the drugs, there was sufficient evidence to convict Defendant; and (2) Defendant’s claims of trial error were without merit. View "United States v. Martinez-Lantigua" on Justia Law

Defendant entered a conditional guilty plea to possession with intent to distribute alpha-PHP and obstruction of justice, reserving the right to appeal the denial of four of his five motions to suppress. On appeal, Defendant challenged the district court’s denial of his four motions to suppress and claimed sentencing error. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not commit clear error in denying Defendant’s four motions to suppress incriminating evidence; and (2) the district court did not err in fashioning Defendant’s sentences, which were substantively reasonable. View "United States v. Coombs" on Justia Law

Alvin Houston and Shawna Calhoun pleaded guilty to transporting Minor A from Maine to Massachusetts and back to Maine over an eight-day period with the intent that Minor A engage in prostitution. In these consolidated appeals, the defendants challenged their sentences of 108 months’ imprisonment each. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err in applying sentencing enhancements for undue influence and computer use; (2) the government did not breach the terms of a proffer agreement in its sentencing memorandum; and (3) the district court adequately weighed the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors when fashioning Calhoun’s sentence. View "United States v. Houston" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty, without a plea agreement, to several federal firearms offenses. Defendant already had a long criminal record, including Massachusetts convictions for unarmed robbery, assault with a dangerous weapon, distribution of a controlled substance, and armed assault with intent to murder. Relying on the first three convictions, the district judge sentenced Defendant as an armed career criminal to fifteen years prison. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that Defendant’s convictions for unarmed robbery, assault with a dangerous weapon, and armed assault with intent to murder provided the necessary three predicates for his Armed Career Criminal Act sentence. View "United States v. Edwards" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant’s conviction for conspiracy to commit access-device fraud. Before trial, Defendant and his co-defendant filed motions to suppress evidence and statements that had been obtained in the previous months in connection with three traffic stops. The district court denied the motions to suppress. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err in denying Defendant’s motion to suppress concerning a traffic stop in Kittery, Maine because the police had reasonable suspicion to justify the investigative stop as of 1:55 a.m. and the seizure was not unreasonably long; and (2) the district court did not err in denying the motion to suppress evidence obtained from a traffic stop in Ohio because there was reasonable suspicion to justify the detention. View "United States v. Ramdihall" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant’s conviction for conspiracy to commit access-device fraud. Before trial, Defendant and his co-defendant filed motions to suppress evidence and statements that had been obtained in the previous months in connection with three traffic stops. The district court denied the motions to suppress. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err in denying the motion to suppress evidence obtained from a traffic stop in Ohio because there was no unlawful seizure, and therefore, the evidence Defendant sought to suppress did not constitute the fruits of an unlawful seizure; and (2) the district court did not err in concluding that the warrantless swiping of credit cards from in the trunk of a rental car through a card reader was constitutional. View "United States v. Hillaire" on Justia Law