Justia U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

The Second Circuit vacated and remanded defendant's conviction for all counts related to the abuse of his public position by engaging in two quid pro quo schemes in which he performed official acts in exchange for bribes and kickbacks. Defendant, the former Speaker of the New York State Assembly, then laundered the proceeds of his schemes into private investment vehicles. Although the court rejected defendant's sufficiency challenges, the court held that the district court's instructions on honest services fraud and extortion did not comport with McDonnell v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2355 (2016), and were therefore in error. McDonnell clarified the definition of an "official act" in honest services fraud and extortion charges. The court further held that this error was not harmless because it was not clear beyond a reasonable doubt that a rational jury would have reached the same conclusion if properly instructed, as was required by law for the verdict to stand. View "United States v. Silver" on Justia Law

HSBC and the government appealed the district court's grant of a motion by a member of the public to unseal the Monitor's Report in a case involving a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) with HSBC. The Second Circuit held that the Monitor's Report is not a judicial document because it is not relevant to the performance of the judicial function. By sua sponte invoking its supervisory power at the outset of this case to oversee the government's entry into and implementation of the DPA, the court explained that the district court impermissibly encroached on the Executive's constitutional mandate to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed." Furthermore, even assuming arguendo that a district court could revoke a speedy trial waiver were it to later come to question the bona fides of a DPA, the presumption of regularity precludes a district court from engaging in the sort of proactive and preemptive monitoring of the prosecution undertaken here. View "United States v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A." on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction for 21 counts of public-corruption-related offenses. The Government conceded that, in light of McDonnell v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2355 (2016), which narrowed the interpretation of "official act" within the meaning of the federal bribery statute, the instructions on Counts Five through Fifteen, the honest-services wire fraud counts, were erroneous. The Second Circuit held that the trial court's instructions on Counts Three, Four, Seventeen, and Nineteen through Twenty-One were not erroneous; that the instructions on the Hobbs Act and honest-services wire fraud counts, to which defendant did not object at trial, do not meet the "plain error" standard; and that defendant's other contentions provided no basis for reversal. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Boyland" on Justia Law

Defendants Martinez, Rodriguez, Fiorentino, and Tejada appealed their convictions stemming from their involvement in a conspiracy, spanning at least a decade, in which more than two dozen persons were alleged to have committed more than 200 robberies of drug traffickers. The Second Circuit held that the evidence was sufficient to prove that Fiorentino was a member of the conspiracy within the statute-of-limitations period; his sentence was substantively reasonable; and the court rejected his remaining challenges. Because Rodriguez did not raise his statute-of-limitations contention until long after his trial, the district court properly denied his motion for acquittal. The court held that the evidence as a whole was sufficient to support Tejada's convictions for obstruction of justice; if it was error to admit the out-of-court description of the attempted robbers, it was harmless beyond any reasonable doubt; and the court rejected challenges to the Government's summation. Martinez's motion for new counsel was properly denied, and there was no plain error in the district court's acceptance of Martinez's plea of guilty to aiding and abetting others in brandishing in furtherance of the Hobbs Act robbery conspiracy. Finally, the court rejected Fiorentino and Tejada's challenges to their sentences. View "United States v. Martinez" on Justia Law

The Second Circuit vacated defendant's 63 month sentence for conspiracy to commit robbery, holding that the district court denied the acceptance-of-responsibility adjustment under USSG 3E1.1(a) based on clearly erroneous factual findings. In light of a defendant's due process right to contest alleged factual errors in his PSR, his good-faith objection to material PSR statements that he disputes does not provide a proper foundation for denial of the acceptance-of-responsibility credit. In this case, the district court's denial of the credit because it viewed defendant as falsely attempting to minimize his participation in the robbery conspiracy was erroneous. View "United States v. Delacruz" on Justia Law

Defendants appealed the district court's motion for summary judgment dismissing on qualified immunity grounds an action brought under 42 U.S.C. 1983. Plaintiff, as conservator of the estate of his brother, Israel Soto, alleged the use of excessive force by the officers in connection with Soto's flight from police. The court held that Defendant Csech's appeal from the denial of his motion for summary judgment was properly before the court, but that the other appeals were not because they were not immediately appealable. In this case, Csech was entitled to qualified immunity because no precedent at the time established that a suspect who was fleeing had a right not to be stopped by means of a taser. In this case, the undisputed facts show that Soto was fleeing when Csech tased him. Accordingly, the court reversed in part and dismissed in part. View "Soto v. Gaudett" on Justia Law

The Second Circuit affirmed defendants' motion for qualified immunity in plaintiffs' action claiming false arrest, unnecessary use of force, and First Amendment retaliation. The court held that its mandate in Brown v. City of New York, 798 F.3d 94 (2d Cir. 2015), did not preclude the district court's considering, and ruling on, defendants' motion for summary judgment on the ground of qualified immunity; defendants did not waive their qualified immunity defense; and the district court committed no error in granting that motion. View "Brown v. City of New York" on Justia Law

Petitioner, convicted of attempted criminal contempt in the second degree and harassment in the second degree, petitioned for habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. 2254. Petitioner was sentenced to a one-year conditional discharge, with the condition that she abide by a two-year order of protection. The Second Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of the petition, holding that the order of protection did not place her "in custody" for purposes of section 2254(a). View "Vega v. Schneiderman" on Justia Law

When the U.S. Attorney has refused to make a Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 35(b) motion for reasons that are not invidious or unrelated to a legitimate government concern, it is not the office of the court to weigh the equities or reassess the facts underlying the government's exercise of its discretion. In this case, the United States appealed an order and second amended judgment reducing defendant's amended judgment in 1999 following his conviction. The Second Circuit held that the district court exceeded the scope and nature of its inquiry and the findings the district court relied on were not sufficiently supported by the record. Here, defendant had committed perjury at his trial; in two other criminal cases he had submitted affidavits that the respective presiding judges found could not be credited; and, most relevantly, he had purported to cooperate with the government with regard to terrorism plans while instead actively misleading the government and affirmatively compromising the investigative efforts he caused it to undertake. View "United States v. Scarpa" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Grenada, sought review of the BIA's decision affirming the IJ's denial of his applications for cancellation of removal, asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The applications were denied based on petitioner's conviction under NYPL 220.31 for criminal sale of a controlled substance in the fifth degree. The Second Circuit held that NYPL 220.31 defines a single crime and is therefore an indivisible statute. Therefore, the BIA should have applied the categorical approach. Applying the categorical approach, the court held that petitioner's conviction did not constitute a commission of an aggravated felony and consequently did not bar him from seeking cancellation of removal and asylum. The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to consider the remainder of the petition. Accordingly, the court granted the petition in part, vacated the BIA's rulings in part, and remanded. View "Harbin v. Sessions" on Justia Law