Justia U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Giuseppe Cracchiolo fell and drowned after slipping from a hazardous place on a fishery pier while attempting to return to the commercial fishing boat on which he was working. Giuseppe’s wife Carla sued the owner and the leaseholder of the facility (collectively, Defendants) where the ship was docked for wrongful death based on a negligence theory. The district court granted summary judgment to Defendants, concluding that Defendants owed no duty of care to remedy the hazard under the circumstances. The First Circuit Court of Appeals reversed without deciding the duty of care issue, holding that the issue could not be decided on the undisputed facts in the record, and therefore, Defendants were not entitled to summary judgment, as a matter of law, on the record. Remanded. View "Cracchiolo v. E. Fisheries, Inc." on Justia Law

Rafaela Sanchez died due to hemorrhaging after giving birth to her third child. Plaintiff, Sanchez’s husband, sued Rafaela’s doctors for medical malpractice. Plaintiff’s lawyers waited more than two years before presenting Plaintiff’s claim. Unbeknownst to Plaintiff and his counsel, the doctors were deemed to be federal employees, against whom claims are barred unless brought within the two-year limitations period allowed under the Federal Tort Claims Act, as opposed to the three-year period allowed for medical malpractice claims in Massachusetts. The United States removed the case to federal court and substituted itself as the defendant. The district court dismissed the suit, finding it time-barred. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that although the doctors’ status as federal employees was not readily apparent to one who undertook no such investigation, based on a prior controlling holding in Gonzalez v. United States, the district court did not err in dismissing the lawsuit. View "Sanchez v. United States" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted on charges of conspiracy and tax evasion. Defendant appealed, arguing that the district court erred in (1) denying his motion to suppress because the premises search conducted by armed agents of the Internal Revenue Service was unlawful, and (2) instructing the jury. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s judgment, holding (1) the district court did not err in refusing to grant Defendant’s motion to suppress, as the performance of the search by armed agents did not constitute an unreasonable intrusion into Defendant’s dwelling where the agents entered the home and conducted the search pursuant to a warrant; and (2) the district court properly instructed the jury. View "United States v. Adams" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendants, Catherine Floyd and William Dion, were convicted of conspiracy to defraud the United States of payroll and income taxes and endeavoring to obstruct and impede the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) there was sufficient evidence to support the convictions; (2) the district court did not err in failing to suppress certain evidence; (3) the district court did not err in denying Defendants’ motions for severance and in trying Defendants jointly with their coconspirator; (4) Defendants’ claim that the IRS’s failure to comply with the Federal Register Act engendered dismissal of some of the charges was without merit; and (5) the district court did not err in sentencing Dion. View "United States v. Dion" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of producing, possessing, and distributing child pornography. Defendant was sentenced to 340 months of imprisonment followed by fifteen years of supervised release. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err in applying the exception to the marital communications privilege for offenses committed against the child of either spouse to certain statements Defendant made to his former wife and in admitting the former wife’s testimony regarding the statements; (2) the district court did not err in admitting file and chat room names that were suggestive of child pornography where no images were recovered; (3) the evidence was sufficient to sustain all three charges; and (4) under the applicable United States Sentencing Guidelines, the sentence imposed in this case was both procedurally and substantively reasonable. View "United States v. Breton" on Justia Law