United States v. Carpenter
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 23678
1st Cir.2013Background
- Carpenter faced two trials for wire and mail fraud; he was convicted both times and the district court then granted a new trial after the first trial due to improper closing arguments.
- In the first trial, the government allegedly used an extended gambling metaphor in closing; the district court vacated the conviction and ordered a new trial.
- In the second trial, the government made different closing arguments; the district court again granted a new trial, finding the closing arguments tainted the verdict.
- Carpenter reviewed marketing materials Benistar used to solicit exchangors and approved; materials touted safety of funds and use of intermediaries.
- Carpenter’s trading relied on risky investments with funds from exchangors, leading to substantial losses after 2000; these losses were referenced in trial, affecting the government’s theory of intent.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether government's closing arguments were improper | Carpenter | Carpenter | No reversible error; closing arguments were not improper as a matter of law. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Hernández, 218 F.3d 58 (1st Cir. 2000) (de novo review of improper closing statements; misconduct is a legal issue)
- United States v. Mangual-Garcia, 505 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2007) (Napue standard for false testimony requires likelihood of affect on verdict)
- Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (U.S. 1972) (prosecutorial disclosure of impeachment evidence; materiality standard)
- United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (1993) (plain error review; standards for preservation and relief)
- United States v. Sasso, 695 F.3d 25 (1st Cir. 2012) (harmless error standard for preserved objections; not constitutional dimension)