United States v. Madsen
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 279
| 1st Cir. | 2016Background
- In Aug. 2014 a federal grand jury in D.N.H. indicted Lawrence Madsen on seven counts of aiding and abetting material false statements in firearm purchases; codefendant Bretton Crawford pled guilty and cooperated.
- Crawford testified he made seven purchases as a straw buyer at Madsen's direction, was paid by Madsen, and that Madsen intended to resell the guns; dealers' testimony, texts, and surveillance corroborated Crawford.
- Madsen did not testify at trial; the jury convicted him on six counts.
- At sentencing the court set the base offense level and an enhancement for 8–24 weapons, producing a GSR of 21–27 months, but imposed an upward variance to 36 months.
- Madsen appealed, arguing prosecutorial error in closing (mis-quotation, improper comment on silence, burden shift) and that the upward variance was procedurally and substantively unreasonable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Prosecutor mis-quoted defense opening | Prosecutor accurately summarized evidence and may reference opening | Madsen: prosecutor misstated counsel's opening (conflated statements) = misconduct | No plain error; misquote was trivial, isolated, and jury instructions mitigated any prejudice |
| Comment on failure to testify | Govt: may remind jury of evidence and that defendant need not testify | Madsen: prosecutor’s reference to "I am innocent" was an improper comment on silence | No plain error; statement reasonably read as referring to opening, not criticizing silence; no manifest intent and jury given curative instructions |
| Burden-shifting in closing | Govt maintains burden remains on prosecution; argument urged jurors to assess evidence | Madsen: prosecutor implied he had to produce evidence of innocence | No plain error; ambiguous remarks not taken in worst light absent contemporaneous objection; court instructions and strong government case negate harm |
| Upward variance at sentencing (procedural & substantive) | Govt: variance justified by defendant's intent to profit and public-safety harms of reselling guns | Madsen: court failed to explain variance adequately and double-counted guideline factors; profit motive is inherent in guideline calculations | Affirmed: district court gave plausible, coherent reasons rooted in offense nature and deterrence; no improper double-counting; 36 months was within range of reasonable sentences |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Gobbi, 471 F.3d 302 (1st Cir.) (standard for reciting evidence jury could find)
- United States v. Taylor, 54 F.3d 967 (1st Cir.) (plain-error review for unpreserved claims)
- United States v. Azubike, 504 F.3d 30 (1st Cir.) (prosecutorial misconduct includes mistaken statements)
- United States v. Sepulveda, 15 F.3d 1161 (1st Cir.) (interpretive doubt to arguer on ambiguous remarks)
- United States v. Vázquez-Larrauri, 778 F.3d 276 (1st Cir.) (test for comments on defendant’s silence)
- United States v. Wilkerson, 411 F.3d 1 (1st Cir.) (context and jury instructions limit harm from ambiguous closing)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (framework for procedural and substantive reasonableness review)
- United States v. Martin, 520 F.3d 87 (1st Cir.) (range of reasonable sentences and variance justification)
- United States v. Del Valle-Rodríguez, 761 F.3d 171 (1st Cir.) (required plausibility in sentencing explanations)
- United States v. Flores-Machicote, 706 F.3d 16 (1st Cir.) (substantial variance not per se unreasonable)