United States v. Armenteros-Chervoni
133 F.4th 8
1st Cir.2025Background
- Jorge Luis Armenteros-Chervoni, an attorney in Puerto Rico, was convicted in federal district court for attempting to bring contraband (cellphones and SIM cards) into a federal correctional facility and for making false statements on prison visitor forms.
- The indictment charged Armenteros with two counts of attempting to provide prohibited objects (phones and SIM cards) under 18 U.S.C. § 1791(a)(1) & (b)(4) and three counts of making materially false statements under 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a)(2), each based on identical statements made on different visitor forms for separate inmates on the same day.
- Pretrial, Armenteros moved to dismiss the indictment as multiplicitous, asserting that the charged acts should constitute fewer offenses because they arose from a single incident. The motion was denied as premature.
- At trial, the government presented evidence of demand for contraband in the prison and the reasons inmates sought phones and SIM cards, as well as testimony about the use of such contraband by criminal organizations.
- The jury convicted Armenteros on all counts. He appealed, raising issues of multiplicity and evidentiary/trial error.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Were the false statement charges multiplicitous under §1001 | All three false statements on separate forms were one offense. | Each form and inmate visit was a separate false statement/offense. | Counts were multiplicitous; only one conviction stands |
| Were the contraband charges multiplicitous under §1791 | Bringing phones and SIM cards should be a single offense (same act). | Each type (phone vs. SIM card) is a different "kind," so multiple. | Counts were multiplicitous; only one conviction stands |
| Admission of inmate testimony & contraband reasons | Testimony was irrelevant and prejudicial, shifting focus. | Testimony was relevant to knowledge, motive, value of contraband. | Admission not abuse of discretion; limiting instructions sufficed |
| Restrictions on closing argument violated fair trial | Restrictions impaired defense's ability to argue and defend. | Court within discretion to limit arguments to decorous boundaries. | No abuse of discretion by the trial court |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Serino, 835 F.2d 924 (1st Cir. 1987) (multiplicitous indictment standard)
- Bell v. United States, 349 U.S. 81 (1955) (doubt about unit of prosecution resolved in defendant's favor)
- United States v. Lilly, 983 F.2d 300 (1st Cir. 1992) (statutory interpretation for unit of prosecution and double jeopardy)
- United States v. Pires, 642 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2011) (court's authority to address multiplicitous indictments)
- Herring v. New York, 422 U.S. 853 (1975) (trial judge's discretion in closing arguments)