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

In 2011, Defendants were convicted of, among other closely related charges, federal program bribery under 18 U.S.C. 666. The First Circuit vacated the convictions, holding that the jury had received improper instructions about what constituted “bribery” under the statute. The Court remanded for possible re-prosecution of the section 666 counts under that same indictment. Defendants filed two motions for acquittal on the section 666 charges, arguing that the Double Jeopardy Clause barred the renewed prosecutions because (1) the jury acquitted on the related offenses in the earlier trial and necessarily found that the government failed to prove issues that it would have to relitigate in the new prosecutions, and (2) a line order that the district court issued and then corrected immediately after the First Circuit issued its mandate in the last appeal constituted a final and irrevocable order of acquittal on the renewed section 666 charges. The district court denied the two acquittal motions. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) Defendants failed to meet their burden of showing that the acquittals involving section 666 collaterally estopped the renewed, standalone section 666 prosecutions; and (2) the district court’s line order did not constitute an acquittal under the Double Jeopardy Clause, and thus double jeopardy did not prevent the district court from reconsidering it. View "United States v. Bravo-Fernandez" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of tampering with a federal witness, possession of a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence, and related crimes. Because the acts for which Appellant was convicted resulted in the death of the witness, Appellant faced the death penalty. The jury recommended a sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. The First Circuit reversed, holding that the district court violated Appellant’s immunity agreement with the government when it insisted that, before a defense expert would be permitted to testify, the defense expert be informed a proffer made in an attempt to negotiate a plea despite the proffer being protected by direct-use immunity. View "United States v. Jimenez-Bencevi" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of wire and mail fraud. The district court calculated Defendant’s sentencing range under the Sentencing Guidelines at thirty to thirty-seven months but imposed a below-Guidelines prison sentence of twenty-six months. Defendant appealed, raising claims of error in the trial court’s evidentiary rulings with respect to a key witness and purportedly improper vouching by the government. Defendant also appealed his sentencing, claiming error in the application of an enhancement for violating securities laws and the loss calculation. The First Circuit affirmed the convictions but remanded for resentencing, holding (1) none of Defendant’s evidentiary challenges had any merit, nor did any of his related due process claims; (2) Defendant waived his argument that the government improperly vouched for its case and its witnesses; (3) the district court did not err in applying the enhancement for violating securities laws; and (4) where the government confessed error as to the loss calculation, and the error was not harmless, a remand was required. View "United States v. Reda" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendants were convicted of mail fraud, wire fraud, and misuse of a government seal, as well as conspiring to commit these crimes. The First Circuit affirmed the convictions, holding that the district court (1) did not violate Defendants’ confrontation rights by admitting into evidence customer complaints and cease-and-desist letters from regulators; (2) did not constructively amend the indictment by admitting evidence of Defendants’ lies to the IRS; (3) did not err in instructing the jury on the elements of misuse of a government seal; and (4) did not abuse its discretion in denying Defendants’ request mid-trial to remove a juror for bias. View "United States v. Godfrey" on Justia Law

After a second jury trial, Defendant was convicted for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine and possession with intent to distribute cocaine. Defendant appealed, arguing (1) there was no probable cause for his arrest, and therefore, the incriminating statements he made shortly after his arrest must be suppressed as fruit of the poisonous tree; and (2) defense counsel’s failure to file a timely motion to suppress on those grounds constituted ineffective assistance of counsel. The First Circuit vacated Defendant’s conviction, holding that trial counsel’s failure to file a timely motion to suppress amounted to constitutionally deficient performance, and Defendant was prejudiced as a result. Remanded. View "United States v. Mercedes-De la Cruz" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm. The conviction stemmed from a search of Defendant’s apartment by police pursuant to a search warrant that resulted in the police finding a pistol and eight rounds of ammunition. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) the trial court did not err in denying Defendant’s motion to suppress, as the affidavit used to support the search of Defendant’s person and apartment was sufficient to establish probable cause; (2) the government met its burden of establishing the interstate commerce element of the felon-in-possession charge; and (3) the district court’s jury instructions concerning the interstate commerce element were not in error. View "United States v. Dixon" on Justia Law

A multi-count indictment alleged that the four appellants in this case and their forty-three co-defendants participated in a drug trafficking conspiracy. Following a joint trial, the appellants were convicted and sentenced to various prison terms ranging from 151 months to life imprisonment. The First Circuit (1) remanded two of the appellants’ cases for a new trial, holding that the district court erred in denying those appellants’ motions for a new trial based on the government’s failure to disclose evidence required to be disclosed under Brady v. Maryland and that the withheld evidence had a reasonable probability of changing the result for those two appellants; and (2) otherwise affirmed, holding that there was no reversible error arising from the claims that the remaining two appellants brought. View "United States v. Flores-Rivera" on Justia Law

Since 2001, Cape Wind Associates, LLC has attempted to acquire the necessary permits and approvals for a wind power generation facility in Nantucket Sound. Under a settlement agreement, NSTAR Electric Company agreed to purchase one-quarter of Cape Wind’s output. The Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities (DPU) approved the contract. Plaintiffs - the Town of Barnstable, a non-profit advocacy group, and businesses and individuals residing near the proposed facility - filed this action in federal district court seeing an injunction and a declaratory judgment against officials of the DPU, the Massachusetts Department of Energy Resources, Cape Wind, and NSTAR. The district court dismissed the complaint, determining that the Eleventh Amendment barred the assertion of federal court jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ claims. The First Circuit vacated the judgment of dismissal and remanded, holding (1) the district court erred in concluding that Plaintiffs’ claims fell outside the Ex parte Young exception to the Eleventh Amendment; and (2) the case was not moot or unripe. View "Town of Barnstable v. O'Connor" on Justia Law

In two separate murder trials in Puerto Rico’s courts, jurors convicted a group of individuals based in large part on the testimony of a single witness. When that witness later recanted her testimony, the Commonwealth courts vacated the convictions and dropped the charges against the convicted individuals. Thereafter, the wrongfully convicted individuals (and/or their heirs and family members) filed these consolidated civil damages actions against police officers and prosecutors involved in their prosecutions, asserting claims under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and various constitutional and tort claims under Puerto Rico law. Defendants moved for summary judgment based on absolute or qualified immunities. The district court rejected the defenses. The First Circuit (1) reversed in part the denial of summary judgment for the assistant district attorney, holding that absolute immunity shielded the assistant district attorney from having to stand trial for Plaintiffs’ malicious prosecution and conspiracy claims under section 1983; and (2) otherwise affirmed the district court’s denial of summary judgment, holding that, to the extent the appeal was predicated on Defendants’ qualified immunity defense under federal or state law, Defendants’ claims were waived for inadequate briefing. View "Diaz-Colon v. Solivan-Solivan" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of possessing a firearm as a convicted felon. Defendant appealed, arguing (1) the prosecutor impermissibly commented on the court interpreter’s translation of certain testimony given by police officers, and (2) the prosecutor invited the jury to infer guilt from Defendant’s silence. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) even assuming that there was an error in the prosecutor’s remarks as to the interpretation of witness testimony, the error was not so prejudicial as to warrant relief; and (2) the prosecutor did not impermissibly comment on Defendant’s exercise of his right to remain silent. View "United States v. Baez-Martinez" on Justia Law