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

Plaintiff began working for the police department in 1986. Although he was a member of NPP, one of Puerto Rico's two major political parties, he received promotions while NPP's main rival, PDP, dominated the executive branch. In 2008, he was promoted to the rank of Commander. His career path became rocky when his party, NPP, won the 2008 general election. New leadership eliminated unspecified duties, retrieved his official cellphone and departmental car, evicted him from his office, and reassigned him to mundane tasks that he viewed as beneath the dignity of his rank. He was not discharged nor stripped of rank, and he did not allege that his compensation was diminished. The district court dismissed his suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983. The First Circuit affirmed, finding no plausible claim of political discrimination. Plaintiff did not allege deprivation of a constitutionally protected interest.View "Rojas-Velazquez v. Figueroa-Sancha" on Justia Law

After a jury convicted defendant as a felon in possession of a firearm, the trial judge learned that a pocket-sized New Testament Bible was found in the jury deliberation room. The judge notified defense counsel, who immediately moved for a new trial, arguing violation of the Sixth Amendment rights to a trial before an impartial jury and to confront witnesses. The judge rejected a request to recall each juror for individual voir dire. The judge denied a second motion for a new trial, arguing that the prosecutor made improper comments during closing and rebuttal arguments. The First Circuit affirmed, first rejecting a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. Defendant waived his Confrontation Clause argument. The district court’s decision to question only the foreman about whether the Bible influenced deliberations was within its discretion. Even if the prosecutor’s statements about defendant’s failure to explain himself were improper, they were not prejudicial in light of their brevity, the amount of evidence of guilt, and a curative instruction.View "United States v. Rodriguez" on Justia Law

Convicted as a felon in possession of a firearm, 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1), defendant appealed his conviction and sentence under the Armed Career Criminal Act, 18 U.S.C. 924(e). The First Circuit affirmed, upholding denial of a motion to suppress evidence seized incident to a Terry stop, including a firearm. Defendant's actions provided reasonable suspicion for the stop and the officers acted reasonably throughout.A prior conviction for assault and battery with a dangerous weapon qualified as a predicate offense under ACCA. View "United States v. Hart" on Justia Law

Defendant was 16 years old at the time of the 1986 shooting deaths of two men, but after a hearing in juvenile court, he was transferred for adult criminal proceedings. His first conviction was vacated in 1992. He was convicted again in 1994, and sentenced to life imprisonment. The state supreme court affirmed the juvenile court's transfer decision, his conviction, and his life sentence. In 1999, he filed a motion for a new trial, asserting ineffective assistance of counsel. The trial court rejected the motion and the supreme court affirmed. In 200 he filed a federal petition for habeas corpus. The district court denied the petition. The First Circuit affirmed, stating that it is barred from reviewing the state court decision because it rests on an independent and adequate state ground. View "Costa v. Hall" on Justia Law

During his trial for the 1986 shooting death of an acquaintance, defendant unsuccessfully urged the jury to find that someone else could have shot the victim, that the killing was accidental, or that he had been too impaired by alcohol or drugs to form specific intent to kill. He was convicted of murder and sentenced to life without parole. Almost five years later, defendant filed a motion for a new trial, claiming ineffective assistance of counsel, based on trial counsel's failure to present a mental impairment or illness defense. Following an evidentiary hearing, defendant was denied a new trial. The state's highest court determined that defendant was competent to stand trial and that counsel's decision was not unreasonable, in light of defendant's opposition to the mental impairment defense. The district court denied a petition for habeas corpus. The First Circuit affirmed.View "Companonio v. O'Brien" on Justia Law

Defendant,convicted of 21 counts of aggravated felonious sexual assault against his two stepchildren, four counts of endangering the welfare of a child and one count of indecent exposure and lewdness, exhausted direct appeals in New Hampshire state courts. The federal district court denied his petition for habeas corpus, 28 U.S.C. 2254, rejecting claims that the trial court violated his Confrontation Clause rights by prohibiting him from cross-examining his stepchildren regarding their accusations that he had also abused younger siblings. The First Circuit affirmed. Exclusion of cross-examination did not deprive defendant of a defense; he was able to introduce other evidence that the children "invented" the allegations. Trial courts may place reasonable limits on cross-examination based on concerns about harassment, prejudice, confusion of issues, witness safety, or interrogation that is repetitive or only marginally relevant. View "Abram v. Gerry" on Justia Law

Petitioner is serving a life sentence in a Massachusetts state prison for first-degree murder. The state's highest court affirmed the conviction. A federal district court denied habeas relief. The First Circuit affirmed, rejecting a claim that trial counsel was ineffective in failing to investigate and present a defense that petitioner's Tourette's Syndrome exacerbated the effects of alcohol and Artane, and that he was legally insane at the time of the killing on account of the Tourette's Syndrome and other mental illness.

Having lost his bid for a Maine Senate seat, plaintiff sued Republican party leadership for defamation libel, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and publicly placing him in a false light. The complaint referred to flyers, brochures, and radio and TV ads days before the election that conjured up imaginary wrongs that he had supposedly done as a selectman for the town of Blue Hill, primarily concerning discontinuance of fireworks on the Fourth of July. The complaint referred to "actual malice." The district court dismissed. The First Circuit affirmed, finding that false statements were made negligently, not with actual malice. Defamation law "does not require that combatants for public office act like war-time neutrals, treating everyone evenhandedly and always taking the high road. Quite the contrary. Provided that they do not act with actual malice, they can badmouth their opponents, hammering them with unfair and one-sided attacks"

After being extradited from Columbia, petitioner was convicted in federal court for his part in a drug conspiracy. He twice sought relief under 28 U.S.C. 2255, without success. He then sought relief under 28 U.S.C. 2241 for alleged violations of the extradition treaty. The district court denied relief, deeming the petition an attempt to circumvent the limits on section 2255. The First Circuit affirmed. Relief under section 2255 does cover violations of treaties and petitioner cannot circumvent the limits on multiple section 2255 petitions by resorting to section 2241 to assert a treaty claim that could as easily have been advanced in his original section 2255 petition.

Petitioner, serving two life terms for first degree murder, exhausted state appeals and was denied habeas corpus. His trial counsel had conceded that petitioner committed the shootings, but attempted to establish insanity. The First Circuit affirmed. Any errors committed under state law with respect to establishing competence or intoxication did not create federal constitutional issues.