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

The First Circuit reversed the decision of the district court denying Defendant's motion to strike the government's notice of intent to seek the death penalty on retrial in this case, holding that double jeopardy barred the government from seeking the death penalty.Defendant was charged with nine counts of committing a violent crime in aid of racketeering and nine counts of using a firearm during a crime of violence. In advance of trial, the government filed a notice of its intent to seek the death penalty on sixteen of those counts. The jury found Defendant guilty on all charges but could not reach a unanimous decision as to punishment. The district court imposed a life sentence without the possibility of release. The First Circuit vacated the conviction, concluding that a courtroom closure during trial constituted structural error. On remand, the government again notified the court of its intention to seek the death penalty. Defendant moved to strike the government's notice on double jeopardy grounds. The district court denied the motion. The First Circuit reversed, holding (1) the first life sentence was an "acquittal," and therefore, double jeopardy barred the government from seeking the death penalty on retrial; and (2) the assumption that the initial penalty-phase jury was properly discharged was incorrect. View "United States v. Candelario-Santana" on Justia Law

The First Circuit vacated the decision of the district court granting summary judgment for Defendants and dismissing Plaintiff's 42 U.S.C. 1983 action on the grounds that Plaintiff's claims were time barred, holding that there was no basis for summary judgment on the record.Plaintiff filed suit against the City of Biddeford, Captain Norman Gaudette with the Biddeford Police Department (BPD), and Chief of Police Roger Beaupre, alleging that Gaudette sexually abused him as a teenager in the later 1980s and that the City and Baupre were deliberately indifferent to Gaudette's violation of his constitutional rights when Plaintiff reported the abuse. Defendants argued that the suit was barred by the statute of limitations. In response, Plaintiff asserted that his claims did not accrue until 2015, when he learned that the BPD and Baupre allegedly knew of at least one other report of Gaudette sexually abusing a minor that pre-dated Plaintiff's experience. The district court granted summary judgment for Defendants. The First Circuit reversed, holding (1) a reasonable jury could find that Plaintiff had no duty to diligently investigate his claims against Defendants before 2015; and (2) therefore, the district court erred in concluding as a matter of law that Plaintiff's claims accrued at the time of his injury in the late 1980s. View "Ouellette v. Beaupre" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the order of the district court dismissing Defendants' motion for a new trial after a jury found them guilty of charges arising out of a large-scale marijuana farming operation, holding that there was no abuse of discretion warranting a new trial.After they were found guilty, Defendants filed a motion for a new trial, arguing that one juror had lied in filling out the written questionnaire given to prospective jurors before trial. The district court denied the motion. The First Circuit vacated the district court's order and remanded for further proceedings to investigate the alleged juror misconduct. On remand, the district court again denied the motion for a new trial. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in (1) fashioning and executing a procedure on remand to investigate Defendants' allegations of juror bias; and (2) denying the motion for a new trial. View "United States v. Russell" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant's sentence for carjacking and using a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence, holding that the sentence was both procedurally and substantively reasonable.At the time of his sentencing, Defendant was serving a thirty-year prison sentence for unrelated offenses in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. The district court sentenced Defendant to eighty-seven months on the carjacking to be served consecutively to the Commonwealth sentence and to five years for use of a firearm. Defendant appealed, challenging his sentence. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) the district court's explanation was sufficient to justify its decision to impose the sentence consecutively, rather than concurrently, to the Commonwealth sentence; and (2) the sentence fell within the range of reasonable sentences. View "United States v. Acevedo-Vazquez" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant's conviction for distribution of child pornography and Defendant's sentence, holding that there was no error in the proceedings below.Defendant pleaded guilty to five counts of sexual exploitation of a minor, one count of distribution of child pornography, and two counts of possession of child pornography. The district court sentenced Defendant to 180 years' imprisonment. On appeal, Defendant argued, among other things, that his conviction of distribution of child pornography could not stand because the difference between the crime it alleged and the one he pleaded guilty to committing resulted in a constructive amendment of the indictment. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) as to the constructive amendment challenge, Defendant did not establish the requisite prejudice to show reversible error; (2) Defendant's challenges to his sentence were unavailing; and (3) Defendant's remaining challenges were without merit. View "United States v. Gaccione" on Justia Law

The First Circuit reversed the condition of Appellant's supervised release that he could not contact his preteen daughter for three years without approval from his probation officer, holding that the district court imposed the condition based in part on an untranslated Spanish document in violation of the Jones Act, 48 U.S.C. 864, and the violation was prejudicial.The daughter's mother filed a petition for protective order, written in Spanish, after Appellant threw a beer can in his daughter's direction and hit her face. The government subsequently moved to revoke Appellant's supervised release on the ground that he violated the condition that he not commit another crime. The magistrate judge issued an order finding probable cause that Appellant had committed the crime of abuse, basing its determination, in part, on the untranslated Spanish-language document. The district court revoked Appellant's supervised release and added as a condition of supervision that Appellant not contact his daughter. The First Circuit reversed and remanded the case for resentencing, holding that the government violated the Jones Act by submitting to the magistrate judge the protective order petition without supplying an English translation, and the error was prejudicial. View "United States v. Muniz-Lopez" on Justia Law

The First Circuit vacated the district court's judgment denying Defendant's motion to vacate his 18 U.S.C. 924(c) conviction and to resentence him without a career offender enhancement, holding that because Johnson v. United States, 576 U.S. 591 (2015) established that the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines' residual clause before United States v. Booker, 54 U.S. 220 (2005), was decided was too vague to constitutionally enhance a defendant's sentence, Defendant's claims were timely.Defendant was convicted under section 924(c). The judge classified Defendant as a career offender under section 4B1.1 of the guidelines. Thereafter, the Supreme Court decided Booker, which held that the mandatory Guidelines system was unconstitutional. Thereafter, the Supreme Court announced a new rule of law in Johnson that imposing an increased sentence under the residual clause of the Armed Career Criminal Act is unconstitutionally vague. Defendant moved to vacate his conviction and sentence, arguing that the Court's reasoning in Johnson made similar residual clauses in section 942(c) and section 4B1.2(a) unconstitutionally vague as well. The district court denied the motion. The First Circuit vacated the judgment, holding (1) Johnson dictates that 4B1.2(a)'s residual clause is unconstitutionally vague; and (2) as a result, Defendant asserted the same right newly recognized in Johnson, making his petition timely. View "Shea v. United States" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant's sentence for federal charges of sex trafficking, drug trafficking, and interstate transportation of a person for prostitution in violation of the Mann Act, holding that the district court did not err in applying a "vulnerable victim" enhancement.At sentencing, the district court determined that Defendant's victim was a vulnerable victim for purposes of applying a two-level enhancement. The court then sentenced Defendant to 320 months' imprisonment on the sex and drug trafficking counts and to concurrent 120-month sentences on the Mann Act counts. The First Circuit affirmed the sentence, holding that Defendant's sentence was not affected by the district court's conclusion that the enhancement for vulnerable victims was warranted under the United States Sentencing Guidelines, and therefore, any alleged error in the application of that enhancement would have been harmless. View "United States v. Graham" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant's convictions for his role as a leader and organizer of a major drug-trafficking organization, holding that the district court did not err in denying Defendant's pro se motions to withdraw his guilty plea and to appoint new counsel.Defendant entered into a plea agreement with the government and, pursuant to that agreement, was sentenced to 240 months of imprisonment. Defendant later made a statement that the district court construed as making a motion to withdraw the guilty plea and a motion to appoint new counsel. After a hearing, the court denied both motions. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the district court (1) did not abuse its discretion in denying Defendant's motion to appoint new counsel; and (2) did not err in denying Defendant's motion to withdraw his guilty plea. View "United States v. Valdez" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant's conviction of one count of transporting child pornography and one count of possessing child pornography, holding that Defendant's sentence was substantively reasonable and that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it imposed two special conditions of supervised release.Defendant pleaded guilty without a plea agreement. After a hearing, the district court sentenced Defendant to 156 months in prison and imposed conditions of supervised release that included restrictions on Defendant's contact with children. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) Defendant's 156-month sentence was not outside the universe of reasonable sentences; and (2) there was a sufficient relationship between Defendant's criminal conduct and the conditions limiting his contact with his son. View "United States v. Benoit" on Justia Law