Death Penalty Opponents Should Rethink Their Support for Life Without Parole Sentences

AUSTIN SARAT

Austin Sarat—Associate Provost and Associate Dean of the Faculty and Professor of Jurisprudence & Political Science at Amherst College—argues that life sentences without the possibility of parole (LWOP) are as problematic and damaging as the death penalty. For this reason, Professor Sarat calls upon death penalty opponents to reconsider their support for LWOP sentences.

Read More

United States v. Alexandre

Docket: 19-2047

Opinion Date: February 25, 2021

Judge: David J. Barron

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant's conviction in the United States District Court for the District of Maine for possessing a firearm in furtherance of drug trafficking, holding that the district court did not err in denying Defendant's motion for a hearing under Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978). After he was charged, Defendant filed a motion to suppress evidence discovered during a search of his home due to what he claimed were false statements and omissions in the affidavit supporting the application for the search warrant. The district court denied the suppression motion, including Defendant's request for an evidentiary hearing. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in denying Defendant's Franks motion.

United States v. Centeno-Gonzalez

Docket: 17-1367

Opinion Date: February 24, 2021

Judge: Jeffrey R. Howard

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant's conviction of unlawful possession of a firearm, holding that there was no error in the proceedings below. Law enforcement officers stopped Defendant as he drove by in a vehicle that the officers believed matched the description of a vehicle that had just been involved in a shooting. The officers arrested Defendant and then deployed a firearm-detecting dog to inspect the outside of the vehicle. The dog sniff results where then used to obtain a search warrant for the vehicle. Based on the results of the search, Defendant was convicted of unlawful possession of a firearm. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err by denying Defendant's motion to suppress; and (2) Defendant was not entitled to a new trial due to certain evidentiary rulings because there was no error, either individually or cumulatively.

Stuart v. City of Framingham, Massachusetts

Docket: 20-1135

Opinion Date: February 24, 2021

Judge: Sandra Lea Lynch

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Labor & Employment Law

The First Circuit affirmed the decision of the district court granting summary judgment in favor of Defendants, the City of Framingham and Brian Simoneau, in this lawsuit raising Massachusetts Whistleblower Act claims and speech retaliation claims under Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (2006), holding that the district court did not err. Vincent Stuart, a former Framingham police officer, brought this action alleging that the termination of his employment was in retaliation for his speech. The district court granted summary judgment for Defendants on both the First Amendment speech-retaliation and the Massachusetts Whistleblower Act claims. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in concluding that there was not a triable question that Stuart's complaint was a substantial or motivating factor in his suspension and termination.

Comcast of Maine/New Hampshire v. Mills

Docket: 20-1104

Opinion Date: February 24, 2021

Judge: Kermit Victor Lipez

Areas of Law: Communications Law

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court granting a preliminary injunction against enforcement against a State of Maine law requiring cable operators to offer their subscribers the option of buying access to cable programs and channels individually, rather than bundled together in a channel or package of channels, holding that the district court did not err. Plaintiffs, a group of cable operators and programmers, sought a preliminary injunction against enforcement of the law, arguing that it was preempted by certain provisions of the federal Communications Act and that it violated the First Amendment. The district court granted the injunction on First Amendment grounds. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) the district court correctly determined that the law triggered heightened First Amendment scrutiny because it singled out cable operators; and (2) because Maine conceded that, at this point in the litigation, it had not offered sufficient evidence in support of the law to survive any heightened level of scrutiny, the district court correctly entered a preliminary injunction delaying enforcement of the law.

Kelley v. United States

Docket: 19-1932

Opinion Date: February 25, 2021

Judge: Ojetta Rogeriee Thompson

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court denying Appellant's petition to vacate his conviction and sentence stemming from a 2003 plea agreement for being a felon in possession of a firearm, holding that the district court did not err. In his petition, citing 28 U.S.C. 2255, Appellant argued that because Criminal Procedure Rule 7 provides that an indictment "must be signed by" a government lawyer and because an assistant United States attorney in his case signed the indictment in 2003 despite having a suspended license to practice law, the indictment was invalidated, stripping the district court of jurisdiction. The district court denied the petition. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that Appellant was not entitled to relief.

United States v. Torres-Monje

Docket: 17-2163

Opinion Date: February 24, 2021

Judge: Jeffrey R. Howard

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant's conviction for possession of child pornography, holding that the Government's evidence was sufficient to convict Defendant. The district court denied Defendant's motions for judgment of acquittal, filed during the trial and then after the verdict, and then sentencing him to a prison term of time served followed by supervised release. On appeal, Defendant argued that the district court erred by denying his motions because the evidence was not sufficient to convict him. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that, even under the standard of review most favorable to Defendant, his sufficiency of the evidence challenge failed.

Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head

Dockets: 19-1661, 19-1922, 19-1857, 19-1729

Opinion Date: February 25, 2021

Judge: Ojetta Rogeriee Thompson

Areas of Law: Gaming Law

In this litigation surrounding the development of a gaming facility on the trust lands of the Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head, the Wampanoag Tribal Council of Gay Head, Inc., and the Aquinnah Wampanoag Gaming Corporation (collectively, the Tribe) the First Circuit affirmed the amended final judgment of the district court as to a permitting issue, holding that the district court did not err. The Tribe planned to build a gaming facility on its trust lands in Dukes County, Massachusetts, but the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, the Town of Aquinnah, and the Aquinnah/Gay Head Community Association sought to put a halt to the development until the Tribe complied with municipal and Commonwealth regulations that they claimed were applicable. At issue was whether a party who did not raise a particular issue, the permitting issue, in the first appeal to the First Circuit, though it could have, could do so on a successive appeal. The district court held that the Tribe had forfeited or waived the issue by not appealing the permitting issue. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that this case did not qualify as one involving an exceptional circumstance, and therefore, the permitting issue could not be raised on appeal.

Molina-Diaz v. Rosen

Docket: 15-2321

Opinion Date: February 25, 2021

Judge: Jeffrey R. Howard

Areas of Law: Government & Administrative Law, Immigration Law

The First Circuit vacated the order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming the order of the immigration judge (IJ) denying Petitioner's application for withholding of removal, holding that the IJ and BIA made legal errors. Petitioner, a native and citizen of Honduras, twice entered the United States without authorization. After the government ordered Petitioner removed to Honduras, Petitioner filed an application for withholding of removal. The IJ denied the motion. The BIA affirmed and denied Petitioner's motion to reopen and remand. The First Circuit vacated the removal order and remanded the case to the BIA for further proceedings, holding (1) the BIA erred in dismissing Petitioner's appeal based on her failure to corroborate; and (2) the BIA erred in finding that Petitioner did not adequately apply for relief under the Convention Against Torture.

Morales-Figueroa v. Valdes, D.C.

Docket: 20-1092

Opinion Date: February 25, 2021

Judge: Boudin

Areas of Law: Medical Malpractice

The First Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part the judgment of the district court taxing Appellant with costs related to expert witnesses used at a jury trial that Appellant lost in his medical malpractice suit against Appellees, holding that certain court costs exceeded the court's authority. After the verdict was rendered, the district court taxed Appellant with costs related to expert witnesses used at trial. On appeal, Appellant challenged the taxation of those costs. The First Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding (1) the district court's cost award with respect to Dr. LaRusso, Appellees' expert witness, exceeded the parameters of Crawford Fitting Co. v. J.T. Gibbons, Inc., 482 U.S. 437 (1987); and (2) the remainder of the district court's order on costs was appropriate.