Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

The First Circuit reversed the decision of the district court granting Appellants' motions brought under Fed. R. Crim. P. 29 for a post-verdict judgment of acquittal on the charge of conspiring to defraud the United States in violation of 18 U.S.C. 371, holding that the district court erred in granting the motions.These consolidated appeals stemmed from the federal criminal investigation into the operations of the New England Compounding Center (NECC), a licensed pharmacy, after patients across the country became ill or died from a contaminated medication. Appellants were Sharon Carter and Gregory Conigliaro, who were, respectively, NECC's former director of operations and NECC's former vice president and general manager. A jury found both Appellants guilty of violating section 371. The district court granted Appellants' motions for a judgment of acquittal on the section 371 count. The First Circuit reversed, holding that there was sufficient evidence in the record to support the convictions. View "United States v. Carter" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendants' convictions connected with the murder of Steven DiSarro, holding that Defendants were not entitled to relief on their allegations of error.Defendants, Francis Salemme and Paul Weadick, were convicted of the 1993 murder of DiSarro. At the time of the murder, Salemme was the boss of a criminal organization known as the New England La Cosa Nostra. Defendants murdered DiSarro to prevent him from talking with federal agents about his activities with Salemme, Weadick and Salemme's son. On appeal, Defendants challenged the trial court's admission of a significant amount of evidence concerning the prior criminal activities of Salemme and several witnesses. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in admitting the evidence. View "United States v. Weadick" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court convicting Defendant of making false statements on certain government forms, theft of government property, and failing to disclose an event that affected Defendant's right to Social Security payments, holding that Defendant's claims on appeal were without merit.Defendant suffered a work injury while working as a mechanic for the United States Postal Service (USPS) and began receiving worker's compensation and Social Security disability benefits. After Defendant had been receiving benefits for several years, the USPS Office of the Inspector General (OIG) began investigating the case and determined that Defendant had continued working and volunteering with his union without disclosing the activities as required. The First Circuit affirmed Defendant's convictions, holding (1) sufficient evidence supported the convictions; (2) the district court properly granted the government's motion in limine preventing Defendant from presenting certain evidence; and (3) there was no error in the sentence imposed by the district court. View "United States v. Rivera-Ortiz" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court denying Defendant's motion to suppress his federal New Hampshire prosecution on double jeopardy grounds, holding that Defendant's double jeopardy rights did not attach in earlier Maine criminal proceedings.In 2018, Defendant was indicted in the District of Maine with criminal offenses. On January 31, 2020, the United States filed a motion to dismiss the indictment without prejudice. Defendant filed a motion for a judgment of acquittal or dismissal with prejudice, arguing that, given the government's accompanying admission that it could not prove its case and his lengthy pretrial detention, due process required an acquittal or dismissal with prejudice. The district court denied the motion and dismissed the case without prejudice. Also on January 31, 2020, the United States filed a criminal complaint in the New Hampshire district court. A grand jury issued an indictment. Defendant moved to dismiss count two on double jeopardy grounds. The district court denied the motion. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that jeopardy did not attach to Defendant's Maine criminal proceedings. View "United States v. Suazo" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendants' convictions of one count each of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and to distribute one hundred grams or more of heroin and one count each of possession with intent to distribute and distribution of heroin, holding that there was no error.Specifically, the First Circuit held (1) the district court did not err in denying Defendants' pre-trial rulings denying their motions to suppress evidence that resulted from the search of their vehicle, including their statements made during the stop; (2) the district court did not impermissibly limit the questioning of Gutierrez in violation of the Confrontation Clause; (3) the prosecutor improperly made a statement during closing argument that referred to facts not in evidence, but the statement was harmless; (4) the district court properly instructed the jury in response to a question asked during deliberations; and (5) the district court did not err in applying the mandatory minimum sentence under 21 U.S.C. 841(b)(1)(B)(i). View "United States v. Cruz-Rivera" on Justia Law

The First Circuit reversed the ruling of the district court suppressing blood alcohol content evidence from a warrantless blood draw because no exigent circumstances were present, holding that the district court misapplied the law to the facts in this case.After a car accident that killed three people, a police officer ordered a warrantless blood of Defendant's blood without Defendant's consent and without exigent circumstances. The government charged Defendant with three counts of manslaughter and other intoxicated-driving crimes. Defendant filed a motion to suppress evidence from the warrantless blood draw, which the district court granted. The First Circuit reversed, holding that the government met its burden to show it was reasonable for the police officer to think exigent circumstances existed when he took the blood draw. View "United States v. Manubolu" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant's conviction of possession of child pornography involving a minor who had not yet attained twelve years of age and sentence of twenty-eight months' imprisonment followed by a sixty-month term of supervised release, holding that Defendant's claims of error were unavailing.Specifically, the First Circuit held (1) the government's evidence was sufficient to sustain a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; (2) there was no plain error in the district court's procedure for entertaining juror questions; and (3) Defendant waived any objection to the district court's jury instruction on the definition of "knowingly." View "United States v. Levin" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court denying, without a hearing, Defendant's motion seeking a reduction of his sentence per the terms of the Fair Sentencing Act, Pub. L. No. 111-220, 2, 124 Stat. 2372, and the First Step Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115-391, 231 Stat. 5194, holding that the district court did not err.In 2008, Defendant was convicted by a jury of distributing more than five grams of cocaine base and sentenced to eighteen years in prison. After Congress passed the Fair Sentencing Act and the First Step Act, Defendant filed a motion in district court seeking a reduction in his sentence per the terms of those statutes. The district court summarily denied the motion. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in declining to modify Defendant's sentence. View "United States v. Fields" on Justia Law

The First Circuit vacated Defendant's conviction of attempted enticement of a minor for unlawful sexual activity, holding that the district court committed plain error in failing to give a jury instruction on the entrapment defense.Defendant was apprehended through a sting operation in which a government agent created a profile on a dating application and, after being contact by Defendant, offered to arrange a sexual encounter with the agent's "minor boyfriend." On appeal, Defendant argued, among other things, that the district court erred in rejecting his request for an entrapment instruction. The First Circuit agreed and remanded the case for a new trial, holding that the trial court committed clear or obvious error in refusing Defendant's entrapment defense, and the error affected Defendant's substantial rights and undermined the fundamental fairness of his trial. View "United States v. Perez-Rodriguez" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant's upwardly variant sixty-month sentence that followed his conviction on charges of being a felon in possession of a firearm and possession of a machine gun and the twenty-four-month sentence that followed the revocation of Defendant's supervised release term, holding that Defendant's claims of error were unavailing.The conduct underlying Defendant's conviction of being a felon in possession of a firearm and possession of a machine gun violated the conditions of an ongoing term of supervised release. Defendant challenged both sentences on appeal. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that Defendant's challenges to his sentences on both procedural and substantive grounds failed. View "United States v. Velez-Andino" on Justia Law