No. _________ ================================================================ In The Supreme Court of the United States ---------------------------------  --------------------------------- FRANK PEAKE, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. ---------------------------------  --------------------------------- On Petition For Writ Of Certiorari To The United States Court Of Appeals For The First Circuit ---------------------------------  --------------------------------- PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI ---------------------------------  --------------------------------- DAVID OSCAR MARKUS* MONA E. MARKUS A. MARGOT MOSS MARKUS/MOSS PLLC *Counsel of Record 40 N.W. 3rd Street, Penthouse 1 Miami, Florida 33128 Telephone (305) 379-6667 Facsimile (305) 379-6668 [email protected] ================================================================ COCKLE LEGAL BRIEFS (800) 225-6964 WWW.COCKLELEGALBRIEFS.COM i QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW In People of Puerto Rico v. Shell, 302 U.S. 253, 259 (1937), this Court held that Puerto Rico’s consti- tutional legal status dictates its statutory status under the Sherman Act. As Respondent United States itself has emphatically (and correctly) stated in a brief to this Court in another matter, and as the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico recently held, Puerto Rico’s constitutional legal status is that of a territory and not a State. The first Question Presented, there- fore, is: Whether the First Circuit erred in determin- ing that Puerto Rico is a State for purposes of the Sherman Act. The second Question Presented addresses the standard for harmless error analysis, an issue of the most critical importance to our criminal justice sys- tem. In the case below, after promising it would not do so, the prosecution repeatedly emphasized to the jury that the jurors, personally as Puerto Ricans, had suffered as a result of the defendant’s antitrust conspiracy by paying more for virtually everything they purchased in Puerto Rico. Despite finding that the defendant had a “valid concern” over the “prose- cutors’ appeal to the jury’s personal interest,” the First Circuit found the error harmless without con- sidering what effect the error had on the jurors. The second Question Presented is: ii QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW – Continued Whether the First Circuit erred in applying a “preponderates heavily against the verdict” standard rather than an “effect on the jury” standard in its harmless error analysis, thereby ignoring the prejudicial effect of the prosecution’s repeated improper argument and questioning that followed the prosecu- tion’s assurances to the trial court that such arguments would not be made. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW ........ i TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................. iv PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI .......... 1 OPINION BELOW ............................................... 1 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ..................... 1 CONSTITUTIONAL, STATUTORY, AND OTH- ER PROVISIONS INVOLVED ........................... 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE .............................. 4 REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT ........... 12 I. THIS COURT SHOULD GRANT CER- TIORARI TO ADDRESS THE PRESSING QUESTION OF WHETHER PUERTO RICO IS A STATE FOR PURPOSES OF THE SHERMAN ACT ................................ 13 II. THIS COURT SHOULD GRANT CER- TIORARI TO UNIFY HARMLESS ER- ROR ANALYSIS AND TO REQUIRE CONSIDERATION OF THE EFFECT OF THE ERROR ON THE JURY, ESPE- CIALLY IN THE CONTEXT OF INTEN- TIONAL IMPROPER PROSECUTORIAL ARGUMENTS AND EVIDENCE THAT FLOUT DIRECT PRIOR COURT RUL- INGS AND THE PROSECUTION’S OWN ASSURANCES TO THE COURT .............. 20 CONCLUSION ..................................................... 33 iv TABLE OF CONTENTS – Continued Page APPENDIX Opinion, United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit (October 14, 2015) ................. App. 1 Opinion and Order Denying Motion for New Trial and Motion for Judgment of Acquittal, United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico (December 5, 2013) ............ App. 44 Order Denying Petition for Panel Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc, United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit (December 15, 2015) .......................................................... App. 86 v TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page CASES: Blake v. Pellegrino, 329 F.3d 43 (1st Cir. 2003) ......... 32 Bollenbach v. United States, 326 U.S. 607 (1946) ....................................................................... 22 Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 (1968) ............ 32 Califano v. Torres, 435 U.S. 1 (1978) ................... 15, 18 Cardona v. Florida, ___ So. 3d ___, 2016 WL 636048 (Fla. February 18, 2016) ............................ 26 Chapman v. California, 368 U.S. 18 (1967) ........ 22, 23 Cordova & Simonpietri Ins. Agency Inc. v. Chase Manhattan Bank N.A., 649 F.2d 36 (1st Cir. 1981) .................................................... 10, 19 Fahy v. Connecticut, 375 U.S. 85 (1963) .................... 22 Fiswick v. United States, 329 U.S. 211 (1946) ........... 22 Franklin Calif. Tax-Free Trust v. Puerto Rico, 805 F.3d 322 (1st Cir. 2015) .................................... 14 Gov’t of the V.A. v. Martinez, 620 F.3d 321 (3d Cir. 2010) ................................................................. 24 Harris v. Rosario, 446 U.S. 651 (1980) ................ 15, 18 Igartua v. United States, 32 F.3d 8 (1st Cir. 1994) .................................................................. 17, 19 Igartua v. United States, 229 F.3d 80 (1st Cir. 2000) .................................................................. 17, 19 Igartua v. United States, 417 F.3d 145 (1st Cir. 2005) (en banc) ............................................ 14, 17, 19 vi TABLE OF AUTHORITIES – Continued Page Igartua v. United States, 626 F.3d 592 (1st Cir. 2010) .................................................................. 17, 19 Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U.S. 750 (1946) ....... 22 O’Neal v. McAninch, 513 U.S. 432 (1995) .................. 22 People of Puerto Rico v. Sanchez Valle, 192 DPR 594 (P.R. 2015) ........................................ passim People of Puerto Rico v. Shell, 302 U.S. 253 (1937) ............................................................... passim Richardson v. Marsh, 481 U.S. 200 (1987) ................ 32 Stewart v. United States, 366 U.S. 1 (1961) .............. 23 Torres v. Puerto Rico, 442 U.S. 465 (1979)........... 15, 18 United States v. Ayala-Garcia, 574 F.3d 5 (1st Cir. 2009) ................................................................. 32 United States v. Cunningham, 145 F.3d 1385 (D.C. Cir. 1998) ........................................................ 24 United States v. Glass, 128 F.3d 1398 (10th Cir. 1997) ........................................................................ 24 United States v. Lopez, 500 F.3d 840 (9th Cir. 2007) ........................................................................ 24 United States v. Mercado-Flores, Case No. 15- 1859, Document Number 00116950970 (1st Cir. January 27, 2016) ................................ 17, 18, 19 United States v. Mitchell, 1 F.3d 235 (4th Cir. 1993) ........................................................................ 24 United States v. Nash, 482 F.3d 1209 (10th Cir. 2007) ........................................................................ 24 vii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES – Continued Page United States v. Rogers, 580 Fed. Appx. 347 (6th Cir. 2014) ......................................................... 25 United States v. Sanchez, 992 F.2d 1143 (11th Cir. 1993), reh’g granted, 3 F.3d 366 (11th Cir. 1993) ................................................................. 14 United States v. Sepulveda, 15 F.3d 1161 (1st Cir. 1993) ................................................................. 32 United States v. Simmons, 374 F.3d 313 (5th Cir. 2004) ................................................................. 24 United States v. Vasquez, 635 F.3d 889 (7th Cir. 2011) ............................................................ 20, 21, 25 United States v. Wiley, 29 F.3d 345 (8th Cir. 1994) ........................................................................ 25 United States v. Willner, 795 F.3d 1297 (11th Cir. 2015) ................................................................. 25 Weiler v. United States, 323 U.S. 606 (1945) ............. 22 Wray v. Johnson, 202 F.3d 515 (2d Cir. 1998) ........... 24 CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS U.S. Const. amend. VI ................................ 3, 13, 21, 32 U.S. Const. amend. X ................................................. 14 U.S. Const. art. IV ...................................................... 18 STATUTORY AND OTHER AUTHORITIES: 18 U.S.C. § 3742 ........................................................... 1 28 U.S.C. § 1254(1) ....................................................... 1 viii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES – Continued Page 28 U.S.C. § 1291 ........................................................... 1 28 U.S.C. § 2111 ...................................................... 4, 25 Fed. R. Crim. P. 21 ........................................................ 6 Fed. R. Crim. P. 52 ........................................................ 3 Sup. Ct. R. 13.1 ............................................................. 1 Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1 ................................ 2, 5, 20 Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 3 .............................. 2, 13, 20 1 PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI Frank Peake respectfully petitions the Supreme Court of the United States for a writ of certiorari to review the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in the matter of United States v. Frank Peake (Case Number 14-1088, Octo- ber 14, 2015), which affirmed the judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico. ---------------------------------  --------------------------------- OPINION BELOW A copy of the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, which affirmed the judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico, is contained in the Appendix (App. 1). ---------------------------------  --------------------------------- STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under 28 U.S.C. § 1254(1) and Part III of the Rules of the Supreme Court of the United States. The decision of the court of appeals was entered on October 14, 2015, and the denial of Peake’s petition for rehearing was entered on December 15, 2015. This petition is timely filed pursuant to Sup. Ct. R. 13.1. The district court had jurisdiction because petitioner was charged with violating federal criminal laws. The court of appeals had jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18