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 dismissed Appellant's appeal from the ruling of the district court granting in part and denying in part Avon Products, Inc.'s motion for the district court to tax costs, holding that the appeal was moot.In a previous appeal, the First Circuit affirmed judgment for Avon on three claims brought by Appellant. After the Court's mandate issued, Avon sought to recover some of its expenses by moving the district court to tax costs. After the district court granted the request in part, Appellant appealed. Thereafter, the parties settled the case for the purpose of avoiding litigation costs. The First Circuit dismissed the appeal and denied, without prejudice, the parties' request that the Court vacate the district court's costs order, holding that the appeal was moot, with the parties to be a their own appellate costs and fees, but that this decision was without prejudice to pursuit of vacatur relief in the district court. View "Villeneuve v. Avon Products, Inc." 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 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 judgment of the district court granting summary judgment in favor of the Town of Pembroke, New Hampshire and dismissing the complaint filed by Signs for Jesus and Hillside Baptist Church (collectively, the Church) challenging the Town's denial of the Church's application for a permit to install an electronic sign on its property, holding that the Town met its summary judgment burden on all counts.Hillside Baptist Church applied for a permit to install an electronic sign on its property to transmit messages provided by the nonprofit corporation Signs for Jesus. The Pembroke Zoning Board of Adjustment denied the permit, citing a provision in the Pembroke Sign Ordinance that bans the use of electronic signs in the zoning district where the Church was located. The Church later brought this complaint, alleging violations of the state and federal Constitutions, the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, and certain New Hampshire zoning laws. The district court granted summary judgment for the Town and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Church's state statutory claims. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the district court did not err. View "Signs for Jesus v. Pembroke, New Hampshire" 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

In this insurance coverage dispute, the First Circuit vacated the decision of the district court holding that United Rentals, Inc. was entitled to defense costs from Scottsdale Insurance Company as an additional insured and that the Scottsdale policy afforded additional insured coverage to United Rentals for its direct and vicarious liability but that this coverage was excess above United Rentals' own coverage under its policies with ACE American Insurance Company, holding that the district court erred in part.Gomes Services, Inc. contracted with United Rentals to rent an electric boom lift. While operated by a Gomes employee, the lift struck and injured Guy Ayotte. Ayotte sued United Rentals and Gomes. At the time of the accident, Gomes was insured by Scottsdale under a policy that extended coverage to any party that Gomes was required by written contract to add as an "additional insured." United Rentals requested that Scottsdale defend and indemnify United Rentals. After the district court made its ruling both parties appealed. The First Circuit held (1) Scottsdale had a duty to indemnify United Rentals in the Ayotte action for both its direct and vicarious liability; and (2) United Rentals' relevant policies did not qualify as "valid and collectible insurance," and therefore, the Scottsdale policy afforded coverage to United Rentals. View "Scottsdale Insurance Co. v. United Rentals, Inc." on Justia Law

The First Circuit denied Petitioner's petition for review of a final order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT), holding that Petitioner's claims were unavailing.After Petitioner was placed in removal proceedings he sought asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the CAT. The immigration judge (IJ) denied relief. The BIA affirmed and, pursuant to the IJ's order, granted Petitioner voluntary departure. The First Circuit denied Petitioner's petition for review, holding (1) Petitioner did not establish that he was eligible for asylum; (2) the resolution of Petitioner's asylum claim also disposed of his withholding of removal claim; and (3) Petitioner's claim related to the denial of his request for CAT protection was waived. View "Zhakira v. Barr" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of district court dismissing Plaintiff's case against the City of Boston and several of its police officers, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the case with prejudice.Plaintiff filed suit in superior court under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and the Massachusetts Tort Claims Act, alleging, among other things, false arrest and imprisonment, excessive force, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. After a lengthy history of delay, the district court gave Plaintiff fourteen days to serve an amended complaint on two defendants. Plaintiff never properly served one of the defendants. The district court dismissed the defendant not properly served. The court then dismissed the other defendant, concluding that Plaintiff's failure to meet a deadline for service did not constitute excusable neglect. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the district court acted within its discretion in dismissing the case with prejudice. View "Tubens v. Doe" on Justia Law