United States v. Sasso
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 19534
| 1st Cir. | 2012Background
- The government charged Sasso with one count of interfering with the operation of an aircraft with reckless disregard for human life under 18 U.S.C. § 32(a)(5) and one count of making false statements under 18 U.S.C. § 1001; after a four-day trial, the jury found him guilty on both counts and he was sentenced to three years."
- Two MSP helicopter escorts over Boston Harbor were hit by a green laser beam traced to a third-floor Medford-Somerville border apartment where Sasso lived; police recovered a keychain laser and nine additional lasers, and he admitted to owning a laser and to “lighting it up” the helicopter, with a later statement acknowledging the act but claiming no intent to interfere.
- Special Agent testimony indicated Sasso acknowledged lasing the helicopter but claimed he did not realize it was a MSP helicopter until it was near his house.
- The district court instructed the jury on willfulness in a way that could permit conviction for deliberate but not necessarily willful interference; the verdict form omitted the word “willfully” under Count 1, contributing to the legal dispute about scienter.
- The First Circuit vacated the Count 1 conviction due to instructional error and remanded for a new trial, while preserving the Count 2 conviction and directing resentencing on Count 2 after remand.
- The case discusses whether the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, supports the verdict beyond a reasonable doubt and whether the instructional error was harmless or reversible.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scienter sufficiency for § 32(a)(5) | Sasso argues evidence proves willful interference with reckless disregard. | N/A | No; sufficiency found for Count 1 was not beyond reasonable doubt; vacated due to error on mens rea. |
| Wrongful jury instruction on willfulness | Instructed willfulness as deliberate action with natural and probable interference; dilutes mens rea. | Instruction was not fair; proposed cure not required to be adopted by court. | Error; instruction was not harmless; Count 1 vacated and remanded for new trial. |
| Harmless error versus reversible error | Error could not be deemed harmless given admitted statements and conflicting proof; may have influenced verdict. | Less stringent standard may apply; evidence still supports conviction. | Error not harmless under Kotteakos framework; reversal and remand appropriate. |
| Impact on Count 2 sentencing | Count 2 conviction stands; but Count 1 vacatur affects overall sentencing. | New sentencing needed; potential concurrent terms unresolved. | Count 2 remains valid; resentencing ordered on Count 2 after remand; overall remand for proper proceedings. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Dwinells, 508 F.3d 63 (1st Cir. 2007) (standard for reviewing Rule 29 sufficiency of evidence)
- United States v. Walker, 665 F.3d 212 (1st Cir. 2011) (favorable-view standard for sufficiency review)
- United States v. Rodríguez-Vélez, 597 F.3d 32 (1st Cir. 2010) (elements and evidentiary review for § 32(a)(5))
- United States v. Gonsalves, 668 F.2d 73 (1st Cir. 1982) (use of consciousness of guilt evidence in criminal trials)
- United States v. Vega Molina, 407 F.3d 511 (1st Cir. 2005) (admissibility of consciousness of guilt evidence; standard of proof)
- United States v. Pacheco, 434 F.3d 106 (1st Cir. 2006) (harmless-error and remand framework)
- United States v. Argentine, 814 F.2d 783 (1st Cir. 1987) (harmless-error framework for non-constitutional errors)
- Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U.S. 750 (Supreme Court 1946) (harmless-error standard for non-constitutional errors)