United States v. Jordan, 37 F.4th 775

Canty and Jordan were tried on a superseding indictment charging a single conspiracy to distribute heroin and cocaine base from multiple "trap-house" locations in Portland, Maine; other co-defendants pleaded guilty or invoked the Fifth.
Government's proof relied on overlapping use of three locations (Redbank, Oak Street, Grant Street), common intermediaries (e.g., Osborne, Tweedie, Santiago), controlled buys, and a video showing Jordan assisting Osborne; Canty was present in Maine for ~4 months, Jordan for the full charged period.
At trial the prosecutor made repeated improper statements in opening, closing, and rebuttal—appeals to community emotion, guilt-by-association, vouching for agents/witnesses, and misattributing video conduct to Canty—that were not contemporaneously objected to.
After the jury convicted both defendants, the district court denied Rule 29 motions (insufficiency) but, on plain-error review of the post-trial new-trial motions, found the prosecutor's comments were errors that prejudiced substantial rights yet nonetheless declined a new trial because it considered the evidence overwhelming.
The First Circuit affirmed denial of acquittal (sufficiency) but concluded the district court committed plain error in refusing a new trial: the prosecutor's cumulative misconduct prejudiced the defendants and seriously impaired the fairness and public reputation of the proceedings, so the convictions were vacated and the case remanded.

Issue	United States' Argument	Defendants' Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for single overarching conspiracy	Evidence supports common goal, interdependence, and participant overlap across multiple trap houses (shared locations, employees, recruiters); reasonable juror could find single conspiracy	Dealers operated independently from separate supplies, resupplied separately, sold from separate stashes; evidence shows multiple separate enterprises or individual dealers, not a single conspiracy	Affirmed denial of acquittal: viewing evidence in government’s favor, sufficient evidence existed for a jury to find a single conspiracy
Whether prosecutorial misconduct warranted a new trial under plain-error review	Concedes some remarks improper but contends errors were not outcome-determinative; generalized jury instructions and strength of the evidence cured prejudice	Prosecutor repeatedly appealed to emotion/community conscience, argued guilt-by-association, vouched for witnesses, and misattributed video conduct to Canty; cumulative misconduct prejudiced defendants and affected substantial rights	Reversed denial of new trial: errors were plain, affected substantial rights, and seriously impaired fairness/integrity/public reputation; vacated convictions and remanded for further proceedings

United States v. Merlino, 592 F.3d 22 (1st Cir. 2010) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
United States v. Avilés-Colón, 536 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2008) (improper appeals to jury's emotions and conscience of community)
United States v. Azubike, 504 F.3d 30 (1st Cir. 2007) (prosecutorial misconduct can require reversal when case is adequate but not overwhelming)
United States v. Negrón-Sostre, 790 F.3d 295 (1st Cir. 2015) (example of a highly organized ‘‘supermarket’’ drug conspiracy)
United States v. Mangual-Santiago, 562 F.3d 411 (1st Cir. 2009) (three-factor test for single-conspiracy analysis: common goal, interdependence, overlap)
United States v. Rivera Calderón, 578 F.3d 78 (1st Cir. 2009) (interdependence indicia in conspiracy cases)
Rosales-Mireles v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 1897 (2018) (standard for prejudice under plain-error review)
United States v. Vázquez-Larrauri, 778 F.3d 276 (1st Cir. 2015) (assessing prosecutorial vouching and plain-error/new-trial factors)