Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

The First Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the City of Portland on Plaintiff’s claim that the City unconstitutionally denied him the opportunity to apply for a permit for his taxi to pick up passengers at the Portland International Jetport on the basis of his race and national origin. The district court ruled that Plaintiff did not have standing to bring his constitutional challenge because Plaintiff had not established a likelihood that he was “ready and able” to apply for the permit. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that there was no genuine issue of material fact regarding the likelihood that Plaintiff would seek the permit. View "McDonough v. City of Portland" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of conspiracy to commit racketeering, conspiracy to commit murder in aid of racketeering, and other charges related to his membership in a crime syndicate. Defendant appealed, raising fifteen claims of error. The First Circuit affirmed, holding, inter alia, (1) Defendant failed to meet his burden of showing grand jury abuse by the government; (2) the government did not improperly join certain charges; (3) the district court did not err in denying Defendant’s motion to suppress; (4) there was no violation of Defendant’s right to conflict-free counsel; (5) the district court did not violate Defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to participate in his own defense; (6) the district court did not violate Defendant’s rights under the Confrontation Clause; (7) there was no evidentiary error; (8) the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions; (9) Defendant failed to show plain error in his claims of prosecutorial misconduct; and (10) the court properly sentenced Defendant. View "United States v. Ponzo" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs brought a lawsuit against their insurance carrier (Defendant), claiming that Defendant had incorrectly denied coverage. The case proceeded to a jury trial. The jury’s unanimous verdict was for Defendant. Thereafter, Plaintiffs filed a motion for a new trial after learning that the jury foreperson had a prior felony conviction, arguing that the juror was not qualified to serve on the jury under 28 U.S.C. 1865(b)(5). The district court denied the motion for a new trial, concluding that Plaintiffs had not shown that the juror’s service deprived them of a fundamentally fair trial. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the juror’s inclusion was not fatal to the jury’s verdict, and therefore, the district court properly denied Plaintiffs’ new-trial motion. View "Faria v. Harleysville Worcester Insurance Co." on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of three counts of bank fraud and one count of conspiracy to commit bank fraud. The district court sentenced Defendant to ninety-three months’ imprisonment and ordered him to pay $532,152 in restitution. The First Circuit affirmed Defendant’s convictions, holding that the district court (1) did not abuse its discretion when it denied Defendant’s motion for substitution of counsel; (2) did not deprive Defendant of his Sixth Amendment right to an attorney by allowing Defendant to represent himself at trial; and (3) did not abuse its discretion when it declined to dismiss a juror for potential bias because there was no bias as a matter of law. View "United States v. Kar" on Justia Law

Israa Hassan, a United States citizen, filed an I-130 petition seeking permanent resident status for her noncitizen husband, Kamal Ali. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) denied the petition based on its determination that Ali’s prior marriage had been fraudulent. Ali and Hassan (together, Plaintiffs) filed a lawsuit alleging that USCIS had violated their Fifth Amendment procedural due process rights by denying the I-130 petition without sua sponte offering a pre-decision evidentiary hearing. The magistrate judge issued an order granting the government’s motion for summary judgment, concluding that, even assuming that Plaintiffs had a liberty interest in Ali having permanent resident status through the petition, due process did not require an evidentiary hearing. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that, even assuming that Plaintiffs were entitled to some form of constitutionally protected liberty interest in this matter, the district court properly held that Plaintiffs did not show how their preferred procedure would have made any difference to the outcome. View "Ali v. United States" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to participating in a conspiracy to defraud the federal government. Defendant appealed, arguing that the district court erred in denying his motion to dismiss the indictment with prejudice based on violations of the Speedy Trial Act, the Speedy Trial Clause of the Sixth Amendment, and the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. The First Circuit vacated the district court’s decision on Defendant’s Sixth Amendment claim and remanded for reconsideration of that claim, holding that the district court was led astray by dicta in one of this Court’s prior opinions in calculating the length of delay relevant to evaluating the alleged Sixth Amendment violation. View "United States v. Irizarry-Colon" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of possession of crack cocaine with intent to distribute. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) Defendant waived any argument regarding the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress text messages that the police obtained from Defendant’s cell phone pursuant to a search warrant; (2) the district court did not err in admitting evidence of Defendant’s prior drug conviction; (3) the district court did not err in allowing a police officer to provide expert testimony; and (4) the district court did not err in failing to instruct the jury on the lesser included offense of simple possession. View "United States v. Henry" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to possession of child pornography and was sentenced to seventy-eight months’ imprisonment and ten years of supervised release. Defendant appealed, arguing that the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress because the search and seizure of computers and other items from his apartment violated the Fourth Amendment. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in finding (1) FBI agents did not violate the curtilage of Defendant’s home; (2) Defendant consented to the search, and the FBI agents did not exceed the scope of that consent; and (3) the temporary seizure of Defendant’s apartment did not violate the Fourth Amendment. View "United States v. Perez-Diaz" on Justia Law

Defendant, a police officer acting under color of state law, took Plaintiff into protective custody, handcuffed him, transported him to a police station, and jailed him after attempting to evaluate whether Defendant was incapacitated by his consumption of alcohol. Plaintiff sued in federal district court, arguing that Defendant lacked probable cause to take him into protective custody. The district court granted Defendant’s motion for summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds, concluding that the law was not clearly established as to the need for probable cause. The First Circuit vacated the entry of summary judgment and remanded for further proceedings, holding (1) the state of preexisting law established that a reasonable officer must have probable cause to take an individual into protective custody, handcuff him, transport him to a police station, and confine him in a jail cell; (2) an objectively reasonable officer in this case would not have had adequate reason to believe that Plaintiff, though intoxicated, was incapacitated; and (3) therefore, the qualified immunity defense was not available to Plaintiff. View "Alfano v. Lynch" on Justia Law

In 1991, six men were shot, execution-style, in an illegal gambling club in Boston's Chinatown district; one (Lee) survived. Lee testified that Tran arrived at the club with one of the victims after they had been drinking. Tran left, then returned with Tham and Pham. All three had guns. Lee felt a gun at the back of his head, heard a bang, and lost consciousness. Two hours later, Lee regained consciousness. Arrest warrants issued, but the three had left the country. Authorities in China arrested Tran in 1999, and Tham in 2000. They were extradited. At trial, the Commonwealth was allowed to introduce, as evidence of consciousness of guilt, a passenger manifest and ticket inquiry showing that three weeks after the shooting, passengers named Tran, Tham, and Pham flew on United Airlines from New York to Hong Kong, having purchased their tickets together. Both were convicted and sentenced to five consecutive terms of life in prison, plus 24 to 25 years. State courts affirmed. They filed federal habeas petitions. The First Circuit affirmed denial of relief, rejecting arguments that the prosecution’s use of photocopies of the flight records violated the Sixth Amendment either because defendants had a right to confront someone who knew the airline's procedures for verifying passenger identities at the time of the flight or had a right to confront the person who created the records. View "Van Tran v. Roden" on Justia Law