United States v. Rosado-Cancel
917 F.3d 66
1st Cir.2019Background
- Federal indictment (18 U.S.C. §§ 922(k), 922(o)) and parallel Commonwealth charges for the same conduct were pending against William Rosado-Cancel.
- Puerto Rico law permits two adversarial preliminary hearings on felony charges; if both find no probable cause, further Commonwealth prosecution is barred.
- Two Puerto Rico magistrates held successive preliminary hearings and concluded there was no probable cause; Commonwealth charges were dismissed and cannot be refiled.
- While the Commonwealth case was disposed, Rosado-Cancel pleaded guilty in federal court to equivalent federal weapons charges.
- Rosado-Cancel moved to dismiss the federal indictment on double jeopardy and issue-preclusion (collateral estoppel) grounds; the district court denied relief, finding jeopardy had not attached and that the issue-preclusion claim was waived and lacked privity.
- Rosado-Cancel appealed; the First Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Rosado-Cancel) | Defendant's Argument (United States) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Double Jeopardy bars federal prosecution after Commonwealth preliminary hearings that resulted in no probable cause | Puerto Rico magistrates’ second no-probable-cause ruling was the functional equivalent of an acquittal; successive federal prosecution violates double jeopardy because PR and U.S. are a single sovereign for equivalent laws | Jeopardy never attached because there was no trial; preliminary hearings do not place a defendant in jeopardy | Jeopardy did not attach at PR preliminary hearings; Double Jeopardy Clause does not bar the federal prosecution |
| Whether a pretrial dismissal after a merits-like determination can create "constructive" jeopardy | The final Commonwealth dismissal precludes relitigation of the probable-cause issue and should bar federal prosecution | Supreme Court precedent rejects constructive-jeopardy theory where no trial occurred; risk of determination of guilt is required for jeopardy to attach | Court rejects functional-equivalent/acquittal argument, cites Serfass and Jorn: without trial, jeopardy does not attach |
| Whether issue preclusion (collateral estoppel) bars federal relitigation of probable cause | Commonwealth magistrates’ determinations should preclude the government from relitigating probable cause in federal court | Claim was waived by failure to raise it before the magistrate judge; even on the merits, preclusion requires party/privity and Rosado-Cancel failed to show privity between sovereigns | Issue-preclusion claim was waived and would fail on the merits for lack of privity |
Key Cases Cited
- Green v. United States, 355 U.S. 184 (1957) (Double Jeopardy protects against multiple trials/convictions for same offense)
- Serfass v. United States, 420 U.S. 377 (1975) (pretrial rulings that do not involve a trial do not cause jeopardy to attach; rejects "constructive" jeopardy)
- United States v. Jorn, 400 U.S. 470 (1971) (jeopardy attaches when a defendant is put to trial before the trier of fact)
- Puerto Rico v. Sánchez Valle, 136 S. Ct. 1863 (2016) (Puerto Rico and the United States are a single sovereign for Double Jeopardy purposes when laws are equivalent)
- United States v. Bonilla Romero, 836 F.2d 39 (1st Cir. 1987) (issue preclusion requires that the party to be precluded was a party or in privity with a party to the prior litigation)
- Paterson-Leitch Co. v. Mass. Mun. Wholesale Elec. Co., 840 F.2d 985 (1st Cir. 1988) (arguments not timely raised before a magistrate are deemed waived)