Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant's conviction of possession of child pornography and sentence of ninety-six months' imprisonment followed by lifetime supervised release, holding that Defendant's arguments on appeal were without merit.Specifically, the First Circuit held (1) the district court did not err in denying Defendant's motion to suppress statements made to investigating officers at his home and the evidence derived from the consensual seizure of his computer; (2) police officers did not unconstitutionally intrude onto the curtilage of Defendant's home; and (3) the district court did not err in denying Defendant's renewed motion to withdraw his guilty plea. View "United States v. Mumme" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court granting Petitioner's habeas corpus petition after the Dominican Republic requested Petitioner for extradition, holding that the United States failed to file the necessary documents to support an extradition request.Upon receipt and review of the Dominican Republic's request to extradite Petitioner, the United States filed an extradition compliant. A federal magistrate judge certified Petitioner as eligible for extradition. Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, arguing that the Dominican Republic failed to provide the required documentation in its extradition request and that his extradition would violate the United Nations Convention Against Torture (CAT) because the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) had previously found that he qualified for CAT relief. The district court granted relief, finding both that the extradition was barred by the BIA's CAT determination and that the extradition request did not satisfy the documentary requirements of the Dominican Republic-United States Extradition Treaty. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) the district court erroneously determined that the United States was bound by the BIA's prior determination awarding Petitioner CAT relief; but (2) the district court properly found that the documentation was insufficient to support an extradition request under the treaty. View "Aguasvivas v. Pompeo" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant's conviction of two counts of making false statements during the purchase of a firearm and one count of making a false statement in a record required to be kept by federal law, holding that there was no reversible error in the jury instructions.On appeal, Defendant argued that his convictions must be vacated because of prejudicial errors in the jury instructions. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) the district court properly and accurately instructed the jury on the legal meaning of he term "gift" and did not direct a verdict on any element of the offense or otherwise invade the province of the jury; (2) there was no error in the court's "actual purchaser" instruction; and (3) there was no reversible plain error in instructing the jury on the first count of making false statements during the purchase of a firearm. View "United States v. Karani" on Justia Law

The First Circuit vacated Defendants' convictions for their roles in an expansive drug-trafficking conspiracy, holding that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions but the trial was rendered unfair due to repeated, one-sided intercessions by the trial judge.The primary challenge of all four defendants on appeal was that they were entitled to a new trial because, throughout the eleven-day jury trial, the district court judge interjected during witness testimony in a manner that signaled an anti-defense bias to the jury and caused Defendants prejudice. The First Circuit agreed, holding that the trial judge's perceptible partiality impaired the integrity and fairness of the trial and that this judicial misconduct infringed upon all Defendants' right to a fair trial. View "United States v. Raymundi-Hernandez" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of Appellant's petition for a writ of habeas corpus, holding that the the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts (SJC) reasonably applied clearly established law in holding that improper statements by the prosecutor during Appellant's trial did not render the trial fundamentally unfair.After a jury trial in Massachusetts state court Appellant was convicted of murder in the second degree and sentenced to life imprisonment. On appeal, Appellant argued that the prosecutor's closing argument was improper. The SJC affirmed Appellant's conviction, concluding that the prosecutor's "unfortunate" remarks did not warrant a new trial. Appellant later filed a habeas petition, which the district court denied. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the district court's conclusion that the prosecutor's challenged statements did not render Appellant's trial fundamentally unfair was a reasonable application of clearly established federal law as determined by the Supreme Court. View "Taylor v. Medeiros" on Justia Law

The First Circuit vacated Defendant's plea of guilty to one count of violating 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1), which makes it a crime for a convicted felon to possess a firearm, holding that there was a reasonable probability that Defendant would not have pled guilty had he been advised that the government need prove that he knew when he possessed the gun that he was a felon.Defendant pleaded guilty in 2018 to one count of violating section 922(g)(1). In 2019, the United States Supreme Court held in Rehaif v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 2191, 2200 (2019), that a conviction for that crime requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt that when the defendant possessed the gun he knew he had previously been convicted of an offense punishable by more than one year in prison. The First Circuit vacated Defendant's conviction, holding (1) the district court's failure to advise Defendant of Rehaif's knowledge requirement was clear error; and (2) there was a reasonable probability that Defendant would not have pled guilty had he been informed in accordance with Rehaif. View "United States v. Guzman-Merced" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant's conviction of a drug offense, in violation of 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(B), holding that the district court did not err in denying Defendant's motion to suppress the drug evidence as having resulted from an unlawful search under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.Drug evidence was obtained from under the hood of a truck in which Defendant was a passenger. On appeal, Defendant argued (1) the government lacked probable cause to remove him from the truck and handcuff him during the search of the vehicle and to search the truck, and (2) the officers lacked reasonable suspicion to support their activities. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) the officers were operating from a tip from a reliable informant that the individuals in the truck had drugs and were about to complete a drug sale, and no more information was needed to justify the seizure of Defendant and the inspection of the vehicle; and (2) because the officers had probable cause to seize Defendant and search the truck, they also had reasonable suspicion. View "United States v. Garcia" on Justia Law

In these consolidated appeals concerning the "categorical and sweeping nature" of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 272, 99, the First Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling that Section 99 violates the First Amendment in criminalizing the secret, nonconsensual audio recording of police officers discharging their official duties in public spaces, holding that the district court properly accounted for the values of both privacy and accountability within our constitutional system.Section 99 makes it a crime to record another person's words secretly and without consent, but Massachusetts does not recognize any exceptions based on whether that person has an expectation of privacy in what is recorded. In 2016, two sets of plaintiffs - the Martin Plaintiffs and Project Veritas Action Fund - filed suit alleging that Section 99 violates the First Amendment. The First Circuit (1) affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the Martin Plaintiffs; and (2) affirmed the district court's order dismissing Project Veritas's First Amendment overbreadth challenge for failing to state a claim but vacated on ripeness grounds the dismissal with prejudice of Project Veritas's remaining First Amendment challenges to the statute and remanded with instructions to dismiss the claims without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. View "Project Veritas Action Fund v. Rollins, Martin v. Rollins" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant's conviction of one count of stealing a motor vehicle and one count of brandishing a firearm, holding that Defendant was not entitled to relief on any of his allegations of error.Specifically, the First Circuit held (1) the evidence at trial was sufficient to support the conviction; (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to compel Defendant's co-defendant to testify and by denying Defendant's motion to delay the trial until after Defendant's co-defendant was sentenced; and (3) precedent foreclosed Defendant's argument that the jury's verdict was inconsistent and his conviction should be vacated. View "United States v. Forty-Febres" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant's sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to one count of unlawfully possessing a machine-gun, holding that the district court did not err in sentencing Defendant.In sentencing Defendant, the district court sentenced Defendant to sixty months, which was outside the guidelines range. The First Circuit largely affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err when it calculated Defendant's guideline sentencing using other relevant conduct; (2) the sentencing court did not improperly rely on an arrest that was unsupported by probable cause; and (3) the district court did not err when it denied Defendant access to the written Statement of Reasons (SOR) but erred when it denied counsel access to the SOR. The Court remanded the case to give defense counsel access to the SOR. View "United States v. Ramirez-Romero" on Justia Law