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

Defendants Michael Powers and John Mahan, who ran an employment agency supplying temporary workers, were convicted after a jury trial of conspiracy to defraud the United States by impeding the functions of the IRS and mail fraud. Powers was also convicted of subscribing false tax returns and Mahan of procuring false tax returns. The tax fraud amounted to $7.5 million. Powers was sentenced to eighty-four months' imprisonment and Mahan to a term of seventy-six months. Defendants' appealed, alleging that the trial court committed errors requiring a new trial. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed Defendants' convictions and sentences, holding (1) there was no prejudice to Defendants in the trial court's failure to give an defense instruction on advice of counsel; (2) various witnesses were not allowed to testify as to the ultimate issues, and thus the role of the jury was not invaded; (3) defense counsel was afforded a reasonable opportunity to impeach adverse witnesses; and (4) the district court did not plainly err in excluding testimony by Defendants' witnesses. View "United States v. Mahan" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of one count of conspiring to distribute and to possess with intent to distribute marijuana. Defendant appealed, claiming (1) the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction, and (2) the district court erred in giving a "willful blindness" instruction. The First Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the conviction, holding (1) the record did not establish that Defendant was willfully blind to drug-related activity; and (2) the Government, therefore, did not meet its burden of poof with respect to the second element of the charged conspiracy - that Defendant "had knowledge of the conspiracy." Remanded to the district court with instructions to enter a judgment of acquittal. View "United States v. Burgos" on Justia Law

This case involved an insurance coverage dispute arising from charges of sexual harassment brought by a former employee (Employee) against the one-time president (President) of Jasmine Company, Inc. After President filed an action against Jasmine's liability insurance provider (Insurer), seeking defense and indemnification for the harassment charges, Insurer filed a third-party complaint against Jasmine itself, requesting a declaratory judgment that it had not duty to defend or indemnify Jasmine for the harassment claims. The district court granted summary judgment on the third-party claims for Jasmine, holding that Insurer had to defend and indemnify Jasmine. At issue on appeal was whether a finder of fact must conclude that the conduct underlying the sexual harassment charges did or did not begin before Jasmine's insurance policy took effect. The First Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the judgment and remanded, holding that neither party was entitled to summary judgment, as the question of when the harassing conduct that gave rise to Employee's claims began was a quintessential question for a factfinder. View "Manganella v. Evanston Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Appellant was charged with five criminal offenses based on the discovery of marijuana plants and pipe bombs in his home. Appellant filed motions to suppress the evidence seized from his home and his statements to law enforcement. The district court denied both motions. Appellant thereafter pled guilty to four counts of the indictment conditioned on his right to appeal the denial of his motions to suppress. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in denying Appellant's suppression motions, as (1) the evidence seized from Appellant's home was discovered pursuant to a warrantless search justified pursuant to the emergency exception to the warrant requirement; and (2) Appellant's statements to investigators were correctly admitted into evidence, as Appellant was not in custody during the interviews, obviating the need for Miranda warnings and for heeding Appellant's invocation of his rights to remain silent and to have counsel present. View "United States v. Infante" on Justia Law

Defendant was indicted on one count of possessing five or more grams of cocaine base. After his motion to suppress evidence was denied, Defendant entered a conditional plea of guilty and was sentenced to 180 months' imprisonment. Defendant appealed the denial of his suppression motion as well as the use of certain prior convictions in calculating his sentence guideline range. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the district court, holding (1) the district court correctly denied Defendant's motion to suppress the evidence, as (i) the police had reasonable suspicion to stop the vehicle in which Defendant was riding, (ii) the stop did not escalate into a de facto arrest, and (iii) the district court's finding that the drugs on Defendant's person were in plain sight was not clearly erroneous; and (2) the district court properly considered Defendant's 1997 conviction for assault and battery of a police officer and 1997 felony drug conviction in calculating Defendant's sentence guideline range. View "United States v. Jones" on Justia Law

In 2007, there were two shooting deaths, one of a civilian, Liko Kenney, and one of a police officer, Bruce McKay, in Franconia, New Hampshire. Following a traffic stop, Kenney shot Officer McKay four times and ran over him twice with his car. Thereafter, a witness to the shooting, Gregory Floyd, approached Kenney and asked him to drop his weapon. When Kenney refused, Floyd shot and killed Kenney, fearing that Kenney might shoot Floyd or his son, who had gone to McKay's assistance. In this civil rights action, under 42 U.S.C. 1983, David Kenney, the civilian victim's father and the executor of his son's estate, sued McKay, the town of Franconia and its police officials, and Floyd. The district court granted the town and police defendants' motion for summary judgment as to all federal claims, concluding that Plaintiff lacked sufficient evidence to prove any violation of Kenney's Fourth Amendment rights had occurred. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Plaintiff failed to offer any evidence of a constitutional violation regarding McKay's actions toward Kenney; and (2) therefore, the claims against the town and McKay's supervisors also failed. View "Kenney v. Floyd" on Justia Law

At issue in this case was whether the governor of Maine violated the First Amendment by removing a large state-owned mural, commissioned by the former administration, from its location on the walls of a small waiting room for visitors to the Maine Department of Labor (MDOL). The mural consisted of panels depicting selected episodes in the history of Maine labor. Plaintiffs, six Maine residents who had viewed the mural and planned to view it again at the MDOL office, filed a complaint against the governor and the commissioner of MDOL claiming that the mural's removal was impermissibly content- and viewpoint-based. The U.S. district court entered judgment for Defendants. After noting that the MDOL waiting room was not a public forum, the First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the government may, in this setting, choose to disassociate itself from an endorsement implicit from the setting for the mural, which it understood as interfering with the message of neutrality the administration wished to portray. View "Newton v. LePage" on Justia Law

After a three-day trial, a jury convicted Defendant of being a felon in possession of a firearm and knowingly possessing a firearm with an altered serial number. Defendant appealed, claiming (1) the district court erroneously precluded his proposed entrapment defense and improperly admitted certain evidence at trial, and (2) because the Commerce Clause does not endow Congress with the requisite authority to regulate the conduct covered by the underlying statutes of conviction, those statutes were invalid and unenforceable. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) the district court's denial of Defendant's pretrial motions to unveil and subpoena an alleged confidential informant did not deprive Defendant of his constitutional right to present a complete defense; (2) the district court's admission of the disputed evidence was not error; and (3) the underlying statutes of conviction were valid and constitutional. View "United States v. Roszkowski" on Justia Law

A jury convicted Appellant on nine counts growing out of a conspiracy to commit armed robbery and the unlawful killing of a guard during a robbery. In an earlier multi-defendant appeal, the First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed Appellant's convictions and sentences on eight of the nine counts. As to the remaining count, however, the First Circuit affirmed Appellant's conviction but vacated his sentence in order to afford him an opportunity to allocute. At resentencing on that count, the district court heard Appellant's allocution and proceeded to reinstate the original sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of release. On appeal, the First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) the district court's failure to fully explain its reason for imposing its sentence on count eight was not plain error, and Appellant's sentence on count eight was substantively reasonable; and (2) Appellant's conviction and sentence on count nine did not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause. View "United States v. Medina-Villegas" on Justia Law

This insurance coverage dispute arose from charges of sexual harassment brought by a one-time employee against Appellant, the former president of Jasmine Company, Inc. Appellant sought a defense to and indemnity for the harassment claims from Appellee, Jasmine's liability insurance provider. The district court ruled that Appellant was not entitled to coverage from Appellee because, under the doctrine of issue preclusion, a prior arbitration between Appellant and the purchaser of his business conclusively established that Appellant's conduct fell within an exclusion to Appellee's insurance policy. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) the arbitration presented Appellant with the full and fair opportunity for adjudication on the issue at hand; and (2) therefore, the district court was correct to bar Appellant from disputing the applicability of the exclusion based on the doctrine of issue preclusion. View "Manganella v. Evanston Ins. Co." on Justia Law