United States v. Majeroni
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 6946
1st Cir.2015Background
- Majeroni previously pleaded guilty in 2001 to two counts of possession of child pornography and served prison time followed by multiple terms of supervised release, repeatedly violating release conditions.
- In August 2012 he began a term of supervised release with strict conditions: GPS home confinement, no internet/computer without approval, and probation officers authorized to search computers.
- On November 26, 2012, probation officers Cook and Tait visited his apartment; after initial questioning Cook obtained Majeroni’s consent to search and found a laptop and modem in a backpack.
- A preliminary forensic review by probation personnel revealed suspected child pornography; the laptop was then searched by Secret Service agents pursuant to a warrant, yielding 190 images.
- Majeroni was indicted for possession of child pornography, moved to suppress the evidence and to exclude references to his prior conviction and supervised release conditions; the district court denied suppression, admitted a stipulation of the 2001 conviction under Fed. R. Evid. 414, allowed limited evidence of supervised release, and the jury convicted him.
- The district court sentenced Majeroni to consecutive prison terms (150 and 24 months) and life supervised release; Majeroni appealed on five grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Majeroni) | Defendant's Argument (Government) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of 2001 child-porn conviction under Fed. R. Evid. 414 | Admission was unfairly prejudicial under Rule 403 and should have been excluded | Rule 414 permits admission; prior guilty plea reduces trial-within-trial and has high probative value | Admission not an abuse of discretion; limiting instruction and plea reduced unfair prejudice |
| Admission of supervised release terms | Evidence of release terms tainted jury and was prejudicial, especially without limiting instruction | Evidence was relevant background explaining search and seizure; defendant waived limiting instruction and elicited some testimony | No abuse of discretion; defendant waived limiting-instruction objection and evidence was background/contextual |
| Suppression of evidence from apartment/computer search | Probation lacked authority; search violated Fourth Amendment | Cook obtained Majeroni’s express consent to search; consent valid | No Fourth Amendment violation; consent authorized the search |
| Sufficiency of evidence (images were of real children; knowledge) | No evidence images depicted real children; no proof Majeroni knew about images | Jury viewed images, received instructions, and had evidence of defendant’s conduct/admissions | No plain error; record supports jury finding images were of children and that Majeroni knew about them |
| Sentencing substantive reasonableness | District court should have downwardly varied for abuse, service, mental health, rehabilitation | Court considered mitigating factors but also recidivism and low likelihood of reform; within guideline range | Sentence substantively reasonable; court gave a plausible rationale and did not abuse discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Joubert v. United States, 778 F.3d 247 (1st Cir. 2015) (review of district court evidentiary rulings for abuse of discretion)
- Bayard v. United States, 642 F.3d 59 (1st Cir. 2011) (deference to district courts on evidentiary feel and courtroom context)
- Gentles v. United States, 619 F.3d 75 (1st Cir. 2010) (Rule 403 guards against unfair prejudice)
- Martinez v. Cui, 608 F.3d 54 (1st Cir. 2010) (no heightened test for Rules 413–415 evidence)
- Jones v. United States, 748 F.3d 64 (1st Cir. 2014) (admitting long-ago conviction under Rule 414 not per se abusive)
- Illinois v. Rodriguez, 497 U.S. 177 (U.S. 1990) (consent to search negates warrant requirement)
- Reynoso v. United States, 276 F.3d 101 (1st Cir. 2002) (forfeiture for failing to renew judgment-of-acquittal motion)
- Wilder v. United States, 526 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2008) (appellate deference to jury verdict supported by plausible record rendition)
- Zapata-Vazquez v. United States, 778 F.3d 21 (1st Cir. 2015) (substantive-reasonableness review requires plausible rationale and defensible result)
- Martin v. United States, 520 F.3d 87 (1st Cir. 2008) (recognition of a range of reasonable sentences)