United States v. Starks, Jr.
861 F.3d 306
1st Cir.2017Background
- In 2009 Trooper Vital stopped Foster Starks after observing a registration-color discrepancy and alleged lane drifting; Vital arrested Starks for driving on a suspended license and found a Wal‑Mart bag on the passenger seat containing prescription pills, ammunition, and a firearm.
- Starks was tried and convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) for possession of a firearm; this is the second appeal after this Court vacated his first conviction for an erroneous standing ruling (Starks I).
- On remand the district court denied Starks’s suppression motion on the merits and, after a second jury trial, convicted him again; Starks challenges the conviction on the ground that the judge’s jury instruction improperly commented on witness credibility.
- At sentencing the government sought application of the ACCA’s 15‑year mandatory minimum, asserting Starks had at least three prior Massachusetts armed‑robbery convictions that qualify as ACCA “violent felonies.”
- The district court applied the ACCA; the First Circuit affirms the conviction (no improper credibility comment) but holds Massachusetts armed and unarmed robbery do not categorically satisfy the ACCA force clause and vacates the ACCA sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial judge’s jury instruction (stating the court had pretrially ruled the stop lawful) impermissibly commented on witness credibility and requires reversal of conviction | Government: instruction was factual/legal and did not comment on witness credibility; any implied comment was harmless | Starks: the statement implied the judge had found Trooper Vital more credible, undermining jury’s role in assessing credibility | Affirmed: instruction did not implicitly endorse witness credibility; jury was told credibility issues were for them and the lawfulness of the stop rested on an uncontested legal fact (registration‑color discrepancy) |
| Whether Massachusetts unarmed robbery is a "violent felony" under ACCA force clause | Government: robbery involves threatened or actual force and thus qualifies | Starks: minimum conduct (e.g., purse‑snatching producing mere awareness) may involve only minimal force not matching ACCA "violent force" | Held: unarmed robbery is not a violent felony under the ACCA force clause (minimum conduct can be mere snatching/touching) |
| Whether Massachusetts armed robbery is a "violent felony" under ACCA force clause | Government/relying on Luna: armed robbery qualifies as a violent felony | Starks: armed robbery can be committed without use/display of the weapon and so may involve only the minimal force of unarmed robbery | Held: armed robbery, as defined by Massachusetts law, is not categorically a violent felony under the ACCA force clause; Luna’s broad language is dicta and not controlling here |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Starks, 769 F.3d 83 (1st Cir. 2014) (prior panel opinion vacating Starks’s first conviction)
- United States v. Márquez–Pérez, 835 F.3d 153 (1st Cir. 2016) (judicial comments on witness credibility are improper)
- United States v. Ayala‑Vazquez, 751 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2014) (same principle regarding judicial comments and standards for harmlessness)
- Quercia v. United States, 289 U.S. 466 (1933) (prohibition on judicial comments adding credibility‑related facts)
- Shepard v. United States, 544 U.S. 13 (2005) (categorical/modified categorical approaches and permissible Shepard documents)
- Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 (1990) (foundational categorical approach for ACCA predicates)
- Johnson v. United States, 559 U.S. 133 (2010) (definition of "physical force" as "violent force")
- Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015) (holding ACCA residual clause unconstitutionally vague)
- Mathis v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2243 (2016) (distinction between divisible statutes and indivisible means; limits on modified categorical approach)
- United States v. Luna, 649 F.3d 91 (1st Cir. 2011) (panel previously held Massachusetts armed robbery satisfied ACCA; treated here as dicta on the specific issue)
- United States v. Mulkern, 854 F.3d 87 (1st Cir. 2017) (MA/Maine robbery analysis relevant to minimal‑force convictions)
- United States v. Whindleton, 797 F.3d 105 (1st Cir. 2015) (distinguishing offenses where weapon possession/importation of force changes categorical analysis)