United States Court of Appeals

For the First Circuit

No. 21-1823

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Appellee,

v.

JASIEL F. CORREIA, II,

Defendant, Appellant.

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

[Hon. Douglas P. Woodlock, U.S. District Judge]

Before

Lynch, Selya, and Howard,

Circuit Judges.

Daniel N. Marx, with whom William W. Fick and Fick & Marx LLP

were on brief, for appellant.

Mark T. Quinlivan, Assistant United States Attorney, with 

whom Rachael S. Rollins, United States Attorney, was on brief, for 

appellee.

November 28, 2022
- 2 -

SELYA, Circuit Judge. At a youthful age, defendantappellant Jasiel F. Correia, II, successfully persuaded investors 

to back his SnoOwl app. He then parlayed his work as an innovator 

and entrepreneur into a stunning electoral victory, winning office 

(at the age of twenty-three) as mayor of the city of Fall River, 

Massachusetts (the City). But the swiftness of the defendant's

rise was matched by the swiftness of his fall: a federal grand 

jury indicted him on charges relating to his SnoOwl promotion, and 

a superseding indictment added charges relating to public 

corruption. The defendant did not seek a severance and, following 

an eighteen-day trial, he was convicted on most of the charges. 

The district court set aside some convictions, but let others stand 

and sentenced the defendant to serve seventy-two months in prison. 

The defendant now appeals. After careful consideration of a 

chiaroscuro record, we affirm.

I

We start with the relevant facts, recounting them "in 

the light most hospitable to the verdict, consistent with record 

support." United States v. Tkhilaishvili, 926 F.3d 1, 8 (1st Cir. 

2019). We divide this discussion into three parts. First, we set 

out the facts supporting the defendant's convictions for wire 

fraud. Second, we set out the facts supporting his convictions 

under the Hobbs Act. Third, we trace the travel of the case. 
- 3 -

A

In late 2012, while a college student, the defendant 

began putting together a plan to develop an app called SnoOwl. 

For help, he enlisted three people: his then-roommate, a friend 

from high school, and a software engineer. The defendant hoped

that SnoOwl, when perfected, would enable consumers to find events, 

specials, and services being offered by businesses near them.

To realize this vision, though, seed money had to be 

obtained. The defendant assumed responsibility for courting 

potential investors. Over time, he persuaded at least five people 

to invest in the endeavor. All five testified at trial, but we 

focus the lens of our inquiry on two of them: Mark Eisenberg and 

Victor Martinez. Eisenberg was a business coach who had previously 

owned or operated firms in various industries. Martinez — a friend 

of Eisenberg's — ran a chain of pizza restaurants.

Eisenberg and Martinez first met the defendant on 

November 4, 2014. During that meeting, the defendant lauded the 

prospects of SnoOwl and asked them to invest $50,000 toward its 

development. As part of his pitch, the defendant told them about 

his background. Most relevant here, he described his previous 

experience "develop[ing] an app." That app — which the defendant 

had developed with a fellow student, Alec Mendes, while at 

Providence College — was called FindIt. Like SnoOwl, FindIt's

purpose was to help consumers identify local businesses that were 
- 4 -

advertising specials and accepting coupons. FindIt earned money 

by charging businesses for advertisements — and over the entire 

span of its existence, FindIt generated only a few thousand dollars 

in revenue.

At their initial meeting, the defendant informed

Eisenberg and Martinez that FindIt was "eventually sold to a group 

out of Cambridge." This unidentified group — as the defendant 

told it — then "turned around and sold [the app] to Facebook." 

Eisenberg recalled being "impress[ed]" by this feat, and he 

remembered that the defendant had indicated that he received money 

from FindIt's sale. 

The defendant's account of FindIt's success was at odds

with the tale told by the record. In point of fact, there was no 

evidence that FindIt was ever purchased by an outside group from

Cambridge or elsewhere. To the contrary, Mendes testified that 

FindIt was abandoned and went offline. Around the same time,

Mendes and the defendant agreed to divide FindIt's assets amongst 

themselves. The defendant received a payout of approximately 

$2,000 — but nothing in the record suggests that those funds 

derived from any sale of the app or its underlying source code.

Unaware of FindIt's ignominious ending, Eisenberg and 

Martinez "believe[d] [the defendant's] representations." 

Eisenberg testified unequivocally that he would not have invested 
- 5 -

in SnoOwl had he "known that there was no college app that was 

sold to people in Cambridge, who then sold it to Facebook."

The day after meeting with the two investors, the 

defendant sent them an email attaching, among other things, "an 

updated business plan." The business plan included information on 

SnoOwl's expenses — specifically, $6,750 per month for software, 

$179 per month for server space, and $8,000 for a legal-fee 

obligation. The business plan also represented that "[o]ther costs 

associated with running the day-to-day operation of SnoOwl are 

negligible," adding a caveat that "[f]uture expenses will include 

hiring new talent and contractors, providing livable salaries to 

employees, and cloud server space."

Eisenberg and Martinez each agreed to invest $25,000 in 

SnoOwl in exchange for a 3.5% equity stake. These details were 

confirmed by email and — to aid in formalizing the investments —

the defendant emailed each of them an "investor agreement." 

Through the investor agreements, the defendant committed to (among 

other things) "not sell[ing], assign[ing], transfer[ring] or 

otherwise convey[ing] business assets . . . owned, held by or owed 

to the Company . . . except in the ordinary course of business, 

without the Investor's consent." The agreement further required 

SnoOwl to act responsibly "to protect the integrity of the company 

and the investment." Eisenberg signed the agreement, but the 

record is tenebrous as to whether Martinez actually signed. What 
- 6 -

is luminously clear, though, is that each man cut a check for 

$25,000 and delivered it to the defendant.

The defendant did not hesitate to spend the investors' 

money on personal expenses. He spent thousands of dollars on

(among other things) car payments, casinos, hotel stays, 

transportation expenses, clothing, women's shoes, cologne, and 

student loans. He also used company funds in service of his 

political ambitions. 

Although these expenditures were made outside the 

ordinary course of the company's business, the defendant never 

sought the investors' consent. Eisenberg testified that had he 

"known that investment money . . . was going to" things like 

"cologne," "$700 shoes for [the defendant's] girlfriend," and

"strip clubs, casinos, and other places of recreation that were 

not involved with the company," he would not have invested. 

Martinez, too, testified that he would "[a]bsolutely not" have 

invested had he been told that the defendant "was going to use 

investment money . . . on expensive shoes, cologne, and many other 

personal items."

The defendant also convinced other individuals to invest 

in SnoOwl. Three such investors testified at trial, sounding many 

of the same themes as Eisenberg and Martinez. This testimony was 

reinforced by a substantial amount of documentary evidence. Taken 

as a whole, the documents showed that, from 2013 through 2015, the 
- 7 -

defendant solicited investments totaling $358,190. Of this sum, 

the defendant spent approximately $18,600 on "[c]lothing, health 

care products, jewelry, personal grooming and personal trainers"; 

$27,023 on "hotel expenses"; $25,121 on "dining expenses"; $31,780 

on "transportation related expenses"; and $37,282 on "personal 

credit cards, student loans and a vehicle." He also spent 

thousands of company dollars on "entertainment expenses" such as 

movies, sightseeing, amusement parks, and golf. Few, if any, of 

these expenses were generated in the ordinary course of SnoOwl's 

business. An Internal Revenue Service (IRS) agent estimated that

the defendant spent $228,654 from SnoOwl's accounts on "personal 

expenditures."

B

The second cache of facts relates to the defendant's 

tenure as the City's mayor. After winning election in 2015, the 

defendant assumed office in January of 2016. As mayor, the 

defendant enjoyed many powers — our concern here is primarily with 

his role in allowing marijuana vendors to open marijuana shops in 

the City.

Some background helps to lend perspective. When 

Massachusetts legalized medical marijuana in 2012 and recreational 

marijuana in 2016, it gave localities a place in the application 

process for prospective entrants into the market. As relevant 

here, between July of 2016 and August of 2018, the Commonwealth's 
- 8 -

laws and regulations required that an applicant obtain a letter of 

support or non-opposition (a non-opposition letter) from the 

municipality in which the applicant proposed to operate. See, 

e.g., 105 Mass. Code Regs. 725.100(B)(3)(f) (2016). In addition, 

an applicant needed to enter into a host community agreement with 

the municipality, see Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. ch. 94G, § 3 (West 

2018); 935 Mass. Code Regs. 500.101(1)(a) (2018), which typically 

committed the business to paying up to three percent of its gross 

sales to the municipality. The Massachusetts Cannabis Control 

Commission required both a non-opposition letter and a host 

community agreement as preconditions to the issuance of a license 

to sell marijuana at retail. See 935 Mass. Code Regs. 

500.101(1)(a) (2018).

As mayor, the defendant held sole responsibility and 

executive authority to issue non-opposition letters and approve

host community agreements. See Fall River, Mass., Charter § C-3-

2. Soon after he assumed office, a number of prospective vendors 

approached the City about opening marijuana businesses. We 

encapsulate below the experiences of four of those prospective

vendors.

1

In 2016, David Brayton began trying to open a marijuana 

business in the City. His initial attempts failed, so he turned 

to his friend, Antonio Costa, for help. Costa had a close 
- 9 -

relationship with the defendant, and he was able to arrange for 

Brayton to meet with the defendant. The meeting proved to be

unproductive, as the location that Brayton proposed for his shop 

encountered a zoning problem.

After Brayton identified another potential location, he

again reached out to Costa. When the two men met, Costa told 

Brayton that the defendant was "looking to get a donation or a 

bribe . . . in order to make this work." Brayton inquired as to 

the price tag, and Costa replied that it would cost $250,000. 

Brayton could not afford to pay that much in a lump sum, so he 

proposed an "alternative arrangement" under which he would pay 

$100,000 up front and an additional $150,000 when his new 

business's "cash flow [turned] positive." Costa said that he would 

need "to get back to" Brayton.

Costa then spoke with the defendant, who asked only

whether Brayton was "good for it?" Subsequently, Costa told 

Brayton that he had spoken with "Jasiel" and that the arrangement 

Brayton had described — $250,000, divided into two installments, 

in exchange for a non-opposition letter and host community 

agreement — was acceptable. 

Acting on this struck bargain, Brayton delivered a 

$100,000 check to Costa on July 14, 2016. Brayton's project then 

began to pick up speed: he received a non-opposition letter dated 
- 10 -

July 14. A host community agreement was signed by the defendant

less than two months thereafter.

Trying does not always pay, and Brayton's marijuana 

dispensary never turned a profit. Consequently, he never forked 

over the remaining $150,000. Even so, the arrangement proved 

profitable for both the defendant and Costa: they divvied up the 

proceeds of Brayton's check, with the defendant pocketing $80,000

and Costa pocketing $20,000.

2

The next aspiring marijuana vendor was Brian Bairos. In 

the 2017-2018 time frame, Bairos decided to expand his Rhode Island 

marijuana business into the City. To this end, Bairos met with 

the defendant and the defendant's chief of staff, Genoveva Andrade. 

After that meeting produced no immediate results, Bairos made the 

acquaintance of Craig Willard who, in turn, introduced him to 

Costa.

When Bairos met with Costa, the latter boasted that "he 

had a good relationship with the mayor, and that he could get 

[Bairos] the letters that [he] need[ed] to move forward with [his] 

license." Costa also told Bairos that there would be a "cost" of 

$250,000, which Bairos regarded as "[b]asically a bribe." Bairos 

objected to the amount, and the two men ultimately agreed to a 

total of $150,000, to be split into two installments — the first 

due "up front" and the second due when Bairos "got the license." 
- 11 -

Bairos testified that he came to realize that the defendant "would 

be getting th[e] money."

In the weeks following the meeting, Bairos and Costa 

exchanged a number of text messages. On May 25, 2018, Costa sent 

a text saying that the defendant "gave [him] a call and told [him] 

it's a done deal so no worries." Bairos took this to mean that 

the defendant had "accepted" the terms he had negotiated with 

Costa. Costa testified to a similar interpretation of this text.

On June 19, 2018, the defendant had dinner with Bairos 

and asked him "[i]s everything good?" Bairos took this to be a 

reference to the arrangement he had reached with Costa, and he 

assured the defendant that "we were [good]" — meaning that he was 

"prepared and had pledged to pay the bribe." The two men met again

ten days later. During this meeting, the defendant asked Bairos 

to "donate" $25,000 "to his legal fund." Bairos understood this 

to be a request for money "in addition to the bribe [he] had 

[already] agreed to pay." Bairos never made the requested 

donation.

In due season, Bairos received a non-opposition letter 

dated July 2, 2018, signed by the defendant.1 On July 7, Bairos

says that he gave Costa $25,000 in cash as "part of the first 

portion of the agreement." Bairos believed that this payment would 

1 The record does not disclose when, if ever, Bairos received 

a host community agreement.
- 12 -

be split in some way between Costa and the defendant. Although he 

already had the letter, Bairos testified that he made the payment 

because he feared that the letter "could be redacted or taken away 

at any time."

Although Costa's testimony reflected a slightly 

different recollection of the facts — Costa testified that Bairos 

forked over between $30,000 and $50,000 — it also lent further 

color to the events surrounding the July 7 payment. Costa 

recounted that he gave Bairos's cash to another co-conspirator 

(Camara) who, in turn, was to pass it along to the defendant. 

According to Costa, the defendant refused to "touch it" for fear 

that it was "fed money." 

On July 16, Costa texted Bairos, saying that "[he has]

been calling [Costa's] phone looking for paper," which Bairos 

interpreted to mean that "Mayor Correia" had been calling Costa

looking for "money." And on July 18, Costa texted Bairos,

reiterating that the defendant "wants his end." Two days later, 

Bairos gave Costa a combination of cash and marijuana, which Costa 

credited as a $42,550 payment toward the bribe.

In September of 2018, Bairos and the defendant met in 

Providence. The defendant wanted to confirm that "everything was 

still going forward and everything was moving, that everything was 

good." He asked Bairos "[i]s the money good? Are we all set?" 

Bairos understood the defendant to be referring to "[f]inish[ing] 
- 13 -

paying off the first portion of the bribe," and he told the 

defendant that "there was [sic] a few hiccups here and there.

There was some additional costs that came through, and that it was 

just taking a little bit more time, but it would be done." On 

March 28, 2019, Bairos made another cash payment to Costa: 

$10,000.

As matters turned out, Costa testified that he never 

gave any of Bairos's bribe money to the defendant. Nor is there 

any evidence that Costa gave the defendant any of the marijuana 

that Costa received from Bairos. 

3

The third aspiring marijuana vendor was Charles Saliby, 

who called city hall at several points during the first half of 

2018 in search of a non-opposition letter and host community 

agreement. Around the beginning of June, Saliby spoke with 

Andrade, who expressed skepticism that the defendant would issue 

additional letters. She nonetheless arranged a meeting between 

Saliby and the defendant.

The two men met (with Andrade in attendance) on or about

June 21, 2018 at the mayor's office. During this meeting, the 

defendant reiterated that he did not have the capacity to issue 

additional letters. He raised the possibility, though, of 

rescinding a license that was presently inactive.
- 14 -

A few days later, the defendant and Andrade visited 

Saliby at Saliby's store. In a backroom office, the defendant and 

Andrade told Saliby that the defendant was prepared to issue the 

coveted letters. When Saliby asked whether there was "anything 

[he] can do," the defendant replied that he was "looking for 

$250,000." Saliby understood this to be a request for "a bribe."2

After Andrade left, Saliby asked the defendant "why 

$250,000?" The defendant responded that the value of the license 

would be "a lot more" and that "he was only going to issue six of 

them." The defendant then added that he wanted the money to be 

paid to his legal defense fund. Saliby balked at the price, and 

the two men haggled, settling upon a figure of $125,000 — a figure 

agreed to after the defendant said that he could not "go any 

lower." When asked at trial what he thought would have happened 

had he refused to pay the bribe, Saliby testified that he believed

the defendant would not have issued the letter and — in the bargain 

— would have retaliated against his existing business.

Once the men had agreed on the amount of the bribe, 

Saliby escorted the defendant out of his office. On the way out, 

they encountered Andrade, who inquired whether "everything" was 

2 As context for this understanding, it is important to note 

that Saliby had learned from Bairos — days earlier — that the 

defendant was seeking a $250,000 bribe from him.
- 15 -

"okay." Saliby replied in the affirmative. Andrade assured him

that "[y]ou're family now."

Saliby later learned of another "annual legal fee" — a 

$50,000 "community impact fee" — that he would need to pay to 

operate his proposed marijuana business. Upon learning of this

fee, Saliby again met with the defendant and Andrade (this time in

Andrade's city hall office). Saliby voiced his objection to the 

$50,000 community impact fee. The defendant replied that he "would 

be able to drop [that fee] down to $25,000 a year" on the condition 

that Saliby "add another $25,000 on top of" the previously agreed 

$125,000. Saliby consented to this arrangement, and the defendant 

agreed that Saliby could pay the $150,000 bribe in two equal 

installments. The first installment was to be paid when Saliby 

received the non-opposition letter and host community agreement

and the second when the Commonwealth issued a provisional license.

Several days after the city hall meeting, the defendant 

called Saliby about coming to collect the first installment. As 

arranged, the defendant drove to Saliby's store; Saliby got into

the defendant's car; and Saliby gave the defendant $75,000 in cash. 

In exchange, the defendant handed Saliby a signed non-opposition 

letter and host community agreement.

4

The fourth aspiring marijuana vendor was Matthew 

Pichette. In 2018, Pichette and his partners decided that they 
- 16 -

wanted to open a marijuana business in the City. On July 11, 2018, 

Pichette contacted David Hebert, a man who had a close relationship 

with the defendant. Hebert explained the process for obtaining 

the necessary documents from the City. He added that he had spoken 

with the defendant and that — although the City was "maxed out" —

the defendant might still be able to get Pichette what he needed. 

Hebert told Pichette that he should put together a proposal and 

that — when the proposal was ready — Hebert would set up a meeting 

between Pichette and the defendant.

Two weeks later, Pichette notified Hebert that the 

proposal was ready. Hebert arranged for Pichette to meet with the 

defendant the following day. Hebert conferred with Pichette in 

advance of that meeting and told him that completing the process 

was "going to come with a cost" — a $25,000 payment to the 

defendant's legal defense fund. Although Pichette "[didn't] like 

this idea," he agreed to make the payment, believing that "there 

was no other way to get" the non-opposition letter and host 

community agreement.

Later that day, Pichette and his partners met with the 

defendant at city hall and presented their proposal. Afterwards, 

Pichette had a private conversation with the defendant during which 

the defendant confirmed that Pichette had "talked with [Hebert] 

and we're good." Pichette rejoined that he had spoken to Hebert

and "we're good." Pichette took this exchange to be a confirmation 
- 17 -

that the defendant knew that Pichette had dealt with Hebert and 

had agreed to pay the $25,000 bribe. Pichette came away believing

"[t]hat [the defendant] was dirty." 

The next day, Pichette met with Hebert and discussed how 

the $25,000 payment was to be made. Hebert suggested funneling 

the money through a $25,000 campaign contribution. To skirt 

campaign finance limits, Hebert further suggested that Pichette 

collect $1,000 checks from twenty-five friends and family members. 

Before the discussion ended, Hebert agreed that the $25,000 amount 

did not have to be paid all at once but, rather, could be split 

into two installments.

On August 20, 2018, Hebert advised Pichette that he was 

"getting [Pichette's] letters" that day. The two men then agreed 

that the bribe would be paid through Pichette's purchase of $25,000 

in tickets to the defendant's fundraising events — $12,500 worth 

of tickets for a summer event and the rest for a Christmas party. 

Pichette collected $11,500 in checks from family members and 

colleagues (most of whom Pichette reimbursed) and used those funds 

to purchase tickets for the first event. The checks were dated 

either August 29 or September 5; they were made out to "Friends of 

Mayor Jasiel Correia, II" or some variation thereof. On August 

21, Hebert delivered the non-opposition letter and host community 

agreement (both of which were dated August 17). 
- 18 -

C

In the midst of these maneuverings, the government 

convened a grand jury to investigate the defendant. On October 4, 

2018, the grand jury returned an indictment charging the defendant 

with wire fraud and tax fraud in connection with the SnoOwl app. 

Almost a year later, the grand jury returned a first superseding 

indictment that enlarged the charges against the defendant to 

include Hobbs Act extortion, conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act 

extortion, and bribery. Most of the new charges related to his 

dealings, as mayor, with would-be marijuana vendors. The remainder 

alleged variously that the defendant, as mayor, hired and retained 

his chief of staff on the condition that she kick back half of her 

salary to him and that he extorted and conspired to extort a 

businessman in exchange for issuing certain permits. In a second 

superseding indictment, the grand jury added charges against 

Andrade. All told, the grand jury — as evidenced by the second 

superseding indictment — charged the defendant with nine counts of 

wire fraud, see 18 U.S.C. § 1343; four counts of tax fraud, see 26 

U.S.C. § 7206(1); five counts of conspiracy to commit extortion, 

see 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a); five counts of extortion, see id.; and 

one count of bribery, see 18 U.S.C. § 666(a)(1)(B). 

Andrade entered a guilty plea, and the defendant 

proceeded to trial alone. The government and the defendant agreed 

that all the charges should be tried together. Following an 
- 19 -

eighteen-day trial, the jury convicted the defendant of all nine 

counts of wire fraud, all four counts of tax fraud, four counts of 

extortion conspiracy, and four counts of extortion. The jury 

acquitted the defendant on one count of extortion conspiracy, one 

count of extortion, and the bribery count. 

The defendant moved for judgment of acquittal and/or a

new trial on all of the counts of conviction. The district court 

consolidated the hearing on these motions with the sentencing

hearing. The court acquitted the defendant on six of the nine 

wire-fraud counts after determining that a stipulation the parties 

had reached did not provide sufficient evidence from which the 

jury could find beyond a reasonable doubt that the "interstate

wire" element of the offense had been satisfied. The court 

likewise acquitted the defendant on all four of the tax-fraud 

counts. In all other respects, the court denied the defendant's 

post-trial motions. It then proceeded to sentence the defendant 

to a seventy-two-month concurrent term of immurement on each count 

of conviction. This timely appeal followed.

II

The defendant challenges his convictions on multiple 

fronts. First, he argues that the evidence was insufficient to 

sustain several of the counts of conviction. Second, he argues

that the impact of spillover prejudice necessitates a new trial. 

Third, he argues that we should order a new trial due to 
- 20 -

instructional error. Finally, he argues that we should order a 

new trial due to prosecutorial misconduct, that is, improper 

closing argument. We address these arguments sequentially.

III

We start with the defendant's claim that the evidence 

was insufficient to permit the jury to convict on the wire-fraud 

counts and some of the Hobbs Act counts. We subdivide our 

analysis, separating the wire-fraud convictions from the Hobbs Act 

convictions.

As to both classes of claims, our standard of review is 

familiar. We review an order denying a motion for judgment of 

acquittal de novo. See United States v. Simon, 12 F.4th 1, 23-24

(1st Cir. 2021), cert. denied sub nom. Kapoor v. United States, 

142 S. Ct. 2811 (2022), and cert. denied sub nom. Lee v. United 

States, 142 S. Ct. 2812 (2022); United States v. George, 841 F.3d 

55, 61 (1st Cir. 2016). Where, as here, the defendant challenges 

"the sufficiency of the evidence, all of the proof 'must be perused 

from the government's perspective.'" United States v. Kilmartin, 

944 F.3d 315, 325 (1st Cir. 2019) (quoting United States v. Gomez, 

255 F.3d 31, 35 (1st Cir. 2001)). "This lens demands that 'we 

scrutinize the evidence in the light most compatible with the 

verdict, resolve all credibility disputes in the verdict's favor, 

and then reach a judgment about whether a rational jury could find 

guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.'" Simon, 12 F.4th at 24 (quoting 
- 21 -

United States v. Olbres, 61 F.3d 967, 970 (1st Cir. 1995)); see

George, 841 F.3d at 61.

In conducting this tamisage, "we must honor the jury's 

evaluative choice among plausible, albeit competing, inferences." 

United States v. Rodríguez-Vélez, 597 F.3d 32, 40 (1st Cir. 2010). 

We "need not be convinced that the verdict is correct" but, rather, 

"need only be satisfied that the verdict is supported by the 

record." Kilmartin, 944 F.3d at 325. Thus, "[t]he verdict must 

stand unless the evidence is so scant that a rational factfinder 

could not conclude that the government proved all the essential 

elements of the charged crime beyond a reasonable doubt." 

Rodríguez-Vélez, 597 F.3d at 39 (emphasis in original).

A

We turn first to the defendant's claim that there was 

insufficient evidence to support the three wire-fraud convictions

that the district court allowed to stand. The elements of wire 

fraud are "(1) a scheme or artifice to defraud using false or 

fraudulent pretenses; (2) the defendant's knowing and willing 

participation in the scheme or artifice with the intent to defraud; 

and (3) the use of the interstate wires in furtherance of the 

scheme." United States v. Arif, 897 F.3d 1, 9 (1st Cir. 2018) 

(quoting United States v. Appolon, 715 F.3d 362, 367 (1st Cir. 

2013)). The term "false or fraudulent pretenses" encompasses any 

false statements or assertions that were either known to be untrue 
- 22 -

when made or that were made with reckless indifference to their 

truth so long as those statements were made with an intent to 

defraud. See United States v. Blastos, 258 F.3d 25, 28 (1st Cir. 

2001). The term extends to "actual, direct false statements as 

well as half-truths and the knowing concealment of facts." Id. at 

29. But in all events, "[t]he false or fraudulent 

representation[s] [at issue] must be material." Appolon, 715 F.3d 

at 367-68. 

Here, the government offered evidence to show that the 

defendant — using two different types of materially false 

representations — constructed a scheme to defraud and induced

Eisenberg and Martinez to invest $25,000 apiece in SnoOwl. The 

first type of fraudulent misrepresentation related to the 

defendant's track record in developing FindIt. Specifically, a 

reasonable jury could have found from the proffered evidence that 

the defendant falsely represented his success in developing and/or 

selling FindIt. The second type of fraudulent misrepresentation

related to the defendant's plans for the use of investor money. 

Specifically, a reasonable jury could have found from the proffered 

evidence that the defendant falsely represented that investor 

money would be used only to develop the SnoOwl app. Relatedly, a 

reasonable jury could have found that the defendant concealed the 

important fact that investor money for SnoOwl would be used for

his personal benefit.
- 23 -

The defendant attempts to sidestep the force of this 

evidence. Although he does not gainsay his interstate use of wire 

transmissions in the course of soliciting investments from 

Eisenberg and Martinez, he digs in his heels as to the other 

elements of the wire-fraud convictions. He argues that he did not 

use false or fraudulent pretenses because his representations 

were, variously, puffery, true, or never uttered. And even if the

statements were made and were false, the defendant says, they were 

not material. 

This rebuttal is all foam and no beer. To begin, the 

defendant's claim that his statements to Eisenberg and Martinez 

regarding FindIt's sale to a group in Cambridge were mere puffery

is baseless. While the line between puffery and fraud is sometimes 

blurred, the law distinguishes "between misrepresentations that go 

to the essence of a bargain and those [misrepresentations] that 

are merely collateral." Arif, 897 F.3d at 10. It is clear beyond 

hope of contradiction that the defendant's misrepresentations 

about FindIt were not merely collateral. After all, particularized 

factual representations that can definitely be refuted — as opposed 

to statements of mere opinions — can constitute fraud. See United 

States v. Martinelli, 454 F.3d 1300, 1317 (11th Cir. 2006); United 

States v. Ranney, 298 F.3d 74, 78 (1st Cir. 2002). The defendant's 

statements regarding FindIt's sale fall squarely into this bucket.
- 24 -

We need not tarry. From the proffered evidence, the 

jury reasonably could have inferred that the defendant's story 

regarding FindIt's sale was a fable and that the sale never 

occurred. Yet, the defendant made a stream of contrary factual 

representations to Eisenberg and Martinez. In context, those

representations could not reasonably be deemed to constitute

"exaggerated opinions or hyped-up sales pitches." Martinelli, 454 

F.3d at 1317. Rather, they were factual statements that were

verifiably refutable. 

The cases cited by the defendant do not advance his 

cause. A prime example is United States v. Rodriguez, 732 F.3d 

1299 (11th Cir. 2013). There, the Eleventh Circuit rejected an 

argument similar to that made by the defendant. See id. at 1304. 

The court held that the accused's statements to investors 

"surpassed 'sellers' talk' or 'mere puffery'" when, among other 

things, the accused made "specific" representations to customers 

that "he knew . . . were completely unfounded." Id. So it is 

here. The defendant's statements regarding FindIt's sale were

lies, not puffery.

What is more, the defendant's lies about FindIt were 

material. "[T]o establish materiality, 'the government need not 

prove that the decisionmaker actually relied on the falsehood.'" 

United States v. Stepanets, 989 F.3d 88, 104 (1st Cir. 2021)

(internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting United States v. 
- 25 -

Cadden, 965 F.3d 1, 12 (1st Cir. 2020)), cert. denied, 142 S. Ct. 

290 (2021). Instead, "the government need only show that the false 

statement 'had a natural tendency to influence, or was capable of 

influencing' its target's decision." Cadden, 965 F.3d at 12 

(internal alteration and quotation marks omitted) (quoting United 

States v. Prieto, 812 F.3d 6, 13 (1st Cir. 2016)); see Appolon, 

715 F.3d at 368. The false statements about FindIt easily clear 

this low bar: they had a natural tendency to influence the 

investors' decisions as to whether to invest in SnoOwl. Indeed, 

the jury reasonably could have concluded that the statements were 

uttered for this very purpose.

The defendant demurs. He contends that Eisenberg and 

Martinez invested in SnoOwl because they were convinced by his

overall business plan — not because he claimed to have had 

previously developed and sold FindIt. But Eisenberg specifically 

testified that he would not have invested in SnoOwl had he "known 

that there was no college app that was sold to people in Cambridge, 

who then sold it to Facebook." And more generally, past success 

is often seen as a herald of future success. Thus, we think that

a rational jury could infer that a statement regarding a 

prospective app-developer's past success in creating and selling 

a similar app would have a natural tendency to influence a 

prospective investor's decision to invest in a new endeavor. The 
- 26 -

defendant's false statements regarding FindIt's sale were, 

therefore, material.

This leaves the defendant's claim that there was 

insufficient evidence for a jury to find that he falsely 

represented his plans for the use of investors' money. In support, 

he advances two arguments. First, he argues that he truthfully 

told investors that he would not draw a salary for his work on 

SnoOwl. Second, he argues that he did not tell Eisenberg or 

Martinez that he would use "all" of the investor money to develop 

SnoOwl. Neither argument gains the defendant any traction.

The defendant's "salary" argument is a red herring. 

Whether the defendant represented that he would not take a salary 

is entirely beside the point. The government's theory of fraud 

encompassed two broad categories of misrepresentation — and 

neither category included a claim that the defendant told investors

that he intended not to draw a salary.

The defendant's second claim of error is swallowed up by 

the district court's jury instructions. The court instructed the 

jury that the defendant could be found guilty if he falsely 

represented "that investor money for the SnoOwl project would be 

used to develop the SnoOwl app" or if he "omitt[ed] to state and 

conceal[ed] that investor money for the SnoOwl project would be 

used for [the defendant's] personal benefit and not for the 

development of the SnoOwl app." Under these instructions, the 
- 27 -

jury did not need to find that the defendant stated an intent to 

put every cent of investor funds toward SnoOwl's development.

With that clarification, we think that the evidence was 

sufficient to support the jury's verdict. Both Eisenberg and 

Martinez testified that the defendant never told them that he 

intended to pay for personal expenses — let alone extravagant 

personal expenses — using company funds. And in the investor

agreements, the defendant warranted that he would not "transfer or 

otherwise convey" SnoOwl's assets except in the ordinary course of 

business. Those assets included the funds invested by Eisenberg 

and Martinez.

The jury reasonably could have found that this assurance 

was honored only in the breach. Following receipt of the 

investment, the defendant proceeded to spend thousands of SnoOwl's 

dollars on personal expenses, ranging from casinos to cologne to 

student loans. No more was exigible to ground the jury's finding 

that the defendant had made materially false representations in 

this respect.

That ends this aspect of the matter. We conclude that 

the evidence was sufficient for the jury to find that the defendant 

had committed the various acts of wire fraud of which he stands 

convicted.
- 28 -

B

We turn next to the defendant's challenges to his

convictions for conspiring to commit extortion in violation of the 

Hobbs Act. (We separately address, see infra Part III(C), his

challenges to the underlying extortion convictions.) The 

defendant argues that the evidence was insufficient to show that 

he conspired with two go-betweens — Hebert and Andrade — to extort

Pichette and Saliby, respectively. Both aspects of this argument 

lack force.

The Hobbs Act makes it a felony to "obstruct[], delay[], 

or affect[] commerce or the movement of any article or commodity 

in commerce, by robbery or extortion" or to attempt or conspire to 

do so. Tkhilaishvili, 926 F.3d at 10 (quoting 18 U.S.C. 

§ 1951(a)); see United States v. Goodoak, 836 F.2d 708, 712 (1st 

Cir. 1988). Extortion, in turn, "is defined under the Hobbs Act 

as 'the obtaining of property from another, with his consent, 

induced by wrongful use of actual or threatened force, violence, 

or fear, or under color of official right.'" Tkhilaishvili, 926 

F.3d at 10 (quoting 18 U.S.C. § 1951(b)(2)). This case focuses on 

the "official right" strain of extortion. 

Extortion under color of official right is the "rough 

equivalent of what we would now describe as 'taking a bribe.'" 

Ocasio v. United States, 578 U.S. 282, 285 (2016) (quoting Evans

v. United States, 504 U.S. 255, 260 (1992)); see United States v. 
- 29 -

Buffis, 867 F.3d 230, 235 n.5 (1st Cir. 2017). To prove this type 

of extortion, the government must "show that a public official has 

obtained a payment to which he was not entitled, knowing that the 

payment was made in return for official acts." Ocasio, 578 U.S. 

at 285 (quoting Evans, 504 U.S. at 268); see United States v. 

Turner, 684 F.3d 244, 253 (1st Cir. 2012). "[T]he offense is 

completed at the time when the public official receives a payment 

in return for his agreement to perform specific official acts; 

fulfillment of the quid pro quo is not an element of the offense." 

Turner, 684 F.3d at 253 (emphasis in original) (quoting Evans, 504 

U.S. at 268). 

The jury supportably could have found that the 

government's evidence showed that the prospective marijuana 

vendors (for purposes of this discussion, Pichette and Saliby) 

agreed to make payments to the defendant in exchange for official 

actions (non-opposition letters and/or host community agreements). 

The defendant nonetheless contends that there was insufficient 

evidence to support his convictions for conspiracy to commit Hobbs 

Act extortion. See, e.g., United States v. Echeverri, 982 F.2d 

675, 679 (1st Cir. 1993) (noting that — to prove conspiracy —

government must "show, inter alia, that an agreement or working 

relationship existed, that it had an unlawful purpose, and that 

the defendant was a voluntary participant in it" (emphasis in 

original)).
- 30 -

1

One branch of the defendant's argument centers on the 

extortion of Pichette (who agreed to pay $25,000 to the defendant's

campaign fund and actually delivered $11,500 in partial 

fulfillment of that agreement). The jury convicted the defendant

both of extorting Pichette directly and of conspiring to do so. 

As relevant here, the defendant insists that the evidence was

insufficient to prove a conspiracy. 

At trial, the government's theory of the case was that 

the defendant conspired with Hebert to extort Pichette. In this 

court, the defendant challenges the premise on which this theory 

rests: to the extent that Hebert extorted Pichette, the defendant

suggests, he acted alone and out of self-interest, fueled by a 

desire to enrich himself and to curry favor with the defendant. 

Contrary to the defendant's importunings, there was

adequate evidence from which the jury reasonably could have 

concluded that the defendant and Hebert conspired to extort 

Pichette. Among other things, the jury heard testimony that, hours 

prior to Pichette's meeting with the defendant, Hebert (who had 

arranged the meeting) advised Pichette that obtaining the nonopposition letter and host community agreement from the defendant 

was going to "come with a [$25,000] cost." And during the meeting 

itself, the defendant confirmed with Pichette that Pichette had 

"talked to [Hebert]" and that they were "good." Juries are 
- 31 -

permitted to draw reasonable inferences from the evidence, and the 

jury in this case fairly could have inferred from this evidence 

both that the defendant was aware that Hebert had informed Pichette 

of the demanded bribe and that Pichette had agreed to pay it. And 

after the meeting, Hebert helped Pichette work out how best to pay 

the bribe and agreed that it could be paid in installments. This 

evidence and the reasonable inferences therefrom painted a picture 

of a conspiracy with Pichette as the bribe-payer, Hebert as the

go-between, and the defendant as the bribe-taker. On these facts, 

the jury was free to accept or reject that picture.

The defendant points elsewhere in the record to argue 

that the "equal or greater" inference is that Hebert was acting 

alone and solely for personal gain. Specifically, the defendant

points to the fact that, while brokering the arrangement, Hebert

unsuccessfully sought $100,000 in consulting fees from Pichette 

and arranged for tens of thousands of dollars in mortgage 

forgiveness on a loan that he owed to Pichette's brother. But 

even if we assume that these facts support a plausible inference 

that Hebert was acting to his own behoof — a matter on which we 

take no view — that assumed fact does not undercut the inference 

that Hebert also conspired with the defendant to extort a bribe 

from Pichette. See Simon, 12 F.4th at 24; Rodríguez-Vélez, 597 

F.3d at 40; United States v. Arias, 238 F.3d 1, 3 (1st Cir. 2001). 

Wrongdoers sometimes may have mixed motives; and where, as here, 
- 32 -

the evidence is sufficient to support more than one motive, it is 

for the jury — not for an appellate court — to separate wheat from 

chaff. See United States v. Woodward, 149 F.3d 46, 58-59 (1st 

Cir. 1998) (noting that "jury was free to 'choose among the 

reasonable alternatives posed by the evidence,' and we will not 

second-guess the jury's conclusion in this regard" (internal 

citation omitted) (quoting United States v. Sawyer, 85 F.3d 713, 

733 (1st Cir. 1996))).

The assumed fact — that the evidence may have been

sufficient for the jury to have found that Hebert was acting, in 

part, out of self-interest — does not give rise to an equal or 

nearly equal inference that Hebert and the defendant were acting

independently. See Rodríguez-Vélez, 597 F.3d at 40 (rejecting 

defendant's argument that "the evidence, even if credited, shows 

him to be a freelance entrepreneur rather than a coconspirator"). 

Notwithstanding any benefits that Hebert may have garnered for 

himself, the jury reasonably could have found that he persuaded

Pichette to agree to donate $25,000 to the defendant's campaign 

fund in exchange for the desired documents. And the $11,500 in 

checks that Pichette subsequently donated were made out to "Friends 

of Jasiel Correia, II," not "David Hebert."

The defendant has a fallback position. He argues that 

the sequence of events demonstrates that, from the defendant's 

perspective, there was no quid pro quo. At its core, this argument 
- 33 -

rests on the fact that Pichette received the documents before he

made the campaign contributions. 

This is smoke and mirrors. In the analogous context of 

illegal bribery under 18 U.S.C. § 666, we have observed that "the 

timing of the payment may not provide a conclusive answer as to 

whether [a] payment is a bribe or a gratuity, [but] the timing of 

the agreement to make or receive a payment may." United States v. 

Fernandez, 722 F.3d 1, 19 (1st Cir. 2013) (emphases in original); 

see United States v. Jennings, 160 F.3d 1006, 1014 (4th Cir. 1998)

(explaining that "the timing of the payment in relation to the 

official act for which it is made is (in theory) irrelevant"); 

United States v. Griffin, 154 F.3d 762, 764 (8th Cir. 1998)

(explaining that the distinguishing characteristic of a bribe is

the agreement to exchange something of value for official action), 

as amended (Sept. 8, 1998). To be sure, "one cannot agree to 

perform an act in exchange for payment when that act has already 

been performed." Fernandez, 722 F.3d at 19. But timing is 

critical: as long as the agreement to exchange a thing of value 

for an official act is made before the act is performed, the 

requisite quid pro quo is established. See Griffin, 154 F.3d at 

764.

Those principles apply here. To convict on this charge, 

the jury had to find that the defendant obtained a payment to which 

he was not entitled in exchange for his agreement to supply the 
- 34 -

documents Pichette needed to open a marijuana business. See

Turner, 684 F.3d at 253. The jury was not required to find that 

the payment was made before the official act occurred. See Evans, 

504 U.S. at 268. 

From the evidence introduced at trial, the jury 

reasonably could have found that Pichette and the defendant agreed 

that Pichette would pay a bribe in exchange for the documents

before the defendant signed them. It is thus of no moment that

the defendant proceeded to sign the documents in advance of 

Pichette's payment of the bribe. By effecting the payment, 

Pichette was simply completing his end of the bargain. When asked 

why he followed through on contributing to the defendant's campaign 

even after the documents were a "done deal," Pichette said 

"[b]ecause that was the deal we made." We hold, therefore, that 

it was well within the jury's province both to infer the existence 

of an explicit quid pro quo between Pichette and the defendant, 

see Griffin, 154 F.3d at 764; see also McCormick v. United States, 

500 U.S. 257, 273 (1991) (holding that where payments are 

structured as campaign contributions, Hobbs Act liability lies

when "payments are made in return for an explicit promise or 

undertaking by the official to perform or not to perform an 

official act"), and to infer that Hebert conspired with the 

defendant to arrange that quid pro quo.
- 35 -

2

This brings us to the defendant's relationship with 

Saliby. Although he refrains from challenging the underlying 

extortion conviction, he takes aim at whether the government proved 

a conspiracy to extort. Upon close perscrutation, we reject the

claim that there was insufficient evidence for the jury to find 

that Andrade conspired with the defendant to extort Saliby.

This claim rests on the notion that Andrade was not a 

coconspirator. Although Andrade was present during certain

meetings between the defendant and Saliby, the defendant posits 

that she was not actively involved in the scheme. In support, the 

defendant cites a number of cases holding that mere presence at 

the scene of a crime and close association with those involved are 

insufficient to show participation in a conspiracy. See, e.g.,

United States v. Morillo, 158 F.3d 18, 25 (1st Cir. 1998); United 

States v. Andujar, 49 F.3d 16, 21 (1st Cir. 1995); United States

v. Ocampo, 964 F.2d 80, 82-83 (1st Cir. 1992).

That is true as far as it goes — but it does not take 

the defendant very far. Presence and close association, though 

insufficient without more, are nonetheless "relevant factors for 

the jury" to consider. Andujar, 49 F.3d at 22. And as we have 

said, a "defendant's presence during the commission of a crime can 

establish guilt where the surrounding circumstances imply 

participation." United States v. Rogers, 121 F.3d 12, 15 (1st 
- 36 -

Cir. 1997); see Echeverri, 982 F.2d at 678 (distinguishing between 

"mere presence" and "culpable presence"). In the last analysis, 

the "question is always whether the circumstances of the particular 

case add up to showing both knowledge and voluntary participation 

in a conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt." Morillo, 158 F.3d at 

25 (emphasis in original).

We think that the circumstances here are sufficient to 

permit the jury to have found both knowledge and voluntary 

participation on Andrade's part. Consequently, the evidence was 

sufficient to show that Andrade conspired with the defendant to 

extort Saliby. For a start, "it reasonably can be assumed that 

'criminals rarely welcome innocent persons as witnesses to serious 

crimes and rarely seek to perpetrate felonies before larger-thannecessary audiences.'" United States v. Patch, 9 F.4th 43, 47 

(1st Cir. 2021) (quoting United States v. Ortiz, 966 F.2d 707, 712 

(1st Cir. 1992)); see Morillo, 158 F.3d at 24. And in other 

contexts in which nefarious activity is afoot, we have said that 

it is much less likely that a person is "an innocent 

bystander . . . where [that] person is brought to a neutral site 

by a [criminal] preliminary to the actual consummation of [the 

crime]." Ortiz, 966 F.2d at 712. These observations apply foursquare to Andrade. She accompanied the defendant to Saliby's store 

and was present when the defendant solicited Saliby for a $250,000 

bribe. She was also present for the duration of a later meeting 
- 37 -

at which the defendant and Saliby negotiated an increased bribe in 

exchange for the lowering of an annual municipal fee. Seen in 

this light, this was not a case in which Andrade simply arranged 

meetings but lacked knowledge of what transpired at those meetings.

The defendant dismisses this logic, relying on cases 

such as Andujar and Ocampo. But the defendant's reliance is 

misplaced. In Andujar, we overturned the defendant's conspiracy 

conviction largely because the defendant was neither present at 

any of the "critical . . . meetings" nor "aware" that the subject 

matter of the meetings concerned a prospective crime. 49 F.3d at 

22. That pattern is repeated in Ocampo, in which we reversed the 

defendant's conviction after determining that "there was no 

evidence that [the defendant] participated in any meetings" with 

her alleged coconspirators, even though it might have been a "fair 

inference" that she "knew what was going on." 964 F.2d at 82-83.

Unlike in Andujar and Ocampo, the evidence here suffices 

to link Andrade to the scheme. Not only was she present at two 

pivotal meetings at which bribes were negotiated, but she also 

asked Saliby if "everything [was] okay" after he and the defendant

had wrapped up their negotiation. When Saliby responded in the 

affirmative, Andrade assured him that "[y]ou're family now." 

Jurors are expected to use their common sense, and a common-sense 

interpretation of Andrade's remark, in the context of what had 
- 38 -

gone before, was to welcome Saliby into the "family" of those who 

were doing under-the-table business with the defendant.

The defendant, in effect, entreats us to examine each 

piece of evidence in isolation — but the jury was entitled to draw 

reasonable inferences from the evidence as a whole. See Olbres, 

61 F.3d at 974. Taking into account Andrade's presence at the two 

meetings, the surrounding circumstances, her close relationship 

with the defendant, and her contemporaneous statement to Saliby, 

the jury reasonably could have inferred both her knowledge of and 

her culpable participation in the bribery scheme. 

3

We summarize succinctly. The record, read favorably to 

the verdict, adequately supports both the jury's finding that the 

defendant conspired with Hebert to extort Pichette and its finding 

that the defendant conspired with Andrade to extort Saliby.3

C

The defendant's final pair of challenges to the 

sufficiency of the evidence implicates two of his four extortion 

3 Given our validation of these verdicts on the grounds 

stated, we need not reach the government's alternative argument 

that the verdicts may be upheld because the evidence suffices to 

show that the defendant conspired with the marijuana vendors 

themselves. Consequently, we take no view of the defendant's 

assertion that, as a matter of law, he could not be found guilty 

of conspiring with a marijuana vendor to extort that vendor 

himself.
- 39 -

convictions: those involving Pichette and Bairos. We consider 

these challenges separately.

1

With respect to Pichette, the defendant argues that the 

evidence did not show that he himself demanded the payment of a 

bribe. He also argues that — because he did not receive a personal 

benefit from Pichette — the evidence was insufficient to show

extortion. Neither argument moves the needle. 

The defendant's argument that the evidence was 

insufficient to show that he extorted Pichette relies on theories 

that we already have rejected. See supra Part III(B)(1). As 

before, he argues that the evidence showed only that Hebert "acted 

independently and for his own personal benefit." But the jury 

heard evidence that, in a meeting at city hall, the defendant had 

a side conversation with Pichette during which he confirmed that 

Hebert had told Pichette about the required bribe and that Pichette 

had agreed to pay it. Based on that conversation and the fact 

that Hebert had discussed the bribe with Pichette earlier that 

day, the jury rationally could have concluded — as it did — that 

the defendant himself was extorting the bribe. 

The defendant does present one new wrinkle. He says 

that — in order to find him guilty of "official right" extortion

— the jury needed to find that he "personally receive[d] payments" 

from the victims of his extortion. In other words, he argues that
- 40 -

he cannot be found guilty under the Hobbs Act of extorting Pichette

if the benefit of his illicit acts accrued solely to some other 

person or people. And because the bribe paid by Pichette was not 

paid directly to the defendant, his thesis runs, he could not

lawfully have been found guilty of extorting Pichette. 

We can swiftly dispose of this argument. Even if the 

defendant was right that he needed to obtain a personal benefit to 

be guilty of "official right" extortion, he in fact received such 

a benefit. Pichette's donation of $11,500 to the defendant's

campaign fund surely would qualify under that rubric. And as we 

already have determined, see supra Part III(B)(1), the jury 

reasonably could have found that Pichette made this contribution 

in exchange for the defendant's explicit undertaking to approve a 

non-opposition letter and host community agreement on Pichette's 

behalf. That meant, in essence, that Pichette received a specific 

quid pro quo in return for his political contribution. No more 

was exigible. See Turner, 684 F.3d at 253 n.4; United States v. 

Cruzado-Laureano, 404 F.3d 470, 482 (1st Cir. 2005). 

2

With respect to Bairos, the defendant reiterates his 

claim that — in order to find him guilty of "official right" 

extortion — the jury would have had to find that he personally 

received something of value from Bairos. This argument has a 

foothold in the record because the alleged middleman — Costa —
- 41 -

testified that he never turned over to the defendant the money and 

drugs that he received from Bairos. 

We nonetheless reject the premise on which this argument 

rests. The Hobbs Act defines extortion in relevant part as "the 

obtaining of property from another, with his consent, under color 

of official right." Turner, 684 F.3d at 253 (internal alteration 

omitted) (quoting 18 U.S.C. § 1951(b)(2)). In United States v. 

Brissette, 919 F.3d 670, 677, 680 (1st Cir. 2019), we held that 

the statute's "obtaining of property" element is satisfied as long 

as the defendant "brings about th[e] transfer [of another's 

property] to a third party." In the process, we refused to credit

the claim that "the defendant[] must also 'enjoy a personal benefit 

from' th[e] directed transfer [of another's property] in order for 

the 'obtaining' element to be satisfied." Id. at 676 (internal 

alteration omitted); see Tkhilaishvili, 926 F.3d at 10-11 (holding

that "the government was not required to show that the defendants 

stood to benefit personally from the extortionate transfer of 

[victim's] property to a third party"). And with respect to the 

Hobbs Act's "official right" element, we noted that the Supreme 

Court has never held "that the 'obtaining of property' element 

requires proof that the defendant received a personal benefit 

separate and apart from having 'brought about a transfer of 

property to another.'" Brissette, 919 F.3d at 679 (internal 
- 42 -

alterations omitted) (quoting Scheidler v. Nat'l Org. for Women, 

Inc., 537 U.S. 393, 408 n.13 (2003)).

Recognizing the force of this precedent, the defendant 

tries an end run. He directs our attention to the term "official 

right" and emphasizes that the Supreme Court has held that the

"official right" strain of Hobbs Act extortion envisions proof of 

either "the sale of public favors for private gain," Wilkie v. 

Robbins, 551 U.S. 537, 564 (2007), or a quid pro quo, see Evans, 

504 U.S. at 268; McCormick, 500 U.S. at 274; see also Turner, 684 

F.3d at 253-54 (collecting cases). Building on this foundation, 

the defendant suggests that the quid pro quo requirement cannot be 

satisfied unless the public official charged with "official right"

extortion personally benefited from the extortionate scheme. In 

the defendant's words, the crime "requires that the official 

personally receive an unlawful payment for an official act." 

We believe that the defendant takes too crabbed a view 

of "official right" extortion. To satisfy the quid pro quo 

requirement, "the Government need only show that a public official 

has obtained a payment to which he was not entitled, knowing that 

the payment was made in return for official acts." Evans, 504 

U.S. at 268. Justice Kennedy elaborated that the requirement of 

a quid pro quo means only:

that without pretense of any entitlement to 

the payment, a public official violates § 1951 

if he intends the payor to believe that absent 
- 43 -

payment the official is likely to abuse his 

office and his trust to the detriment and 

injury of the prospective payor or to give the 

prospective payor less favorable treatment if 

the quid pro quo is not satisfied.

Id. at 274 (Kennedy, J., concurring) (emphasis in original). 

Neither element of this definition limits the quid pro quo 

requirement to situations in which a public official personally 

benefits from the corrupt payment. This makes good sense, 

especially when one considers that the Court has long held that 

"extortion as defined in the [Hobbs Act] in no way depends upon 

having a direct benefit conferred on the person who obtains the 

property." United States v. Green, 350 U.S. 415, 420 (1956). 

Nor are we blazing a new trail in holding — as we do —

that "official right" extortion does not require that the 

extortionist receive a direct benefit. Other courts that have 

considered the question have reached the same conclusion. See, 

e.g., United States v. Renzi, 769 F.3d 731, 743 (9th Cir. 2014);

United States v. Hairston, 46 F.3d 361, 365 (4th Cir. 1995); United 

States v. Haimowitz, 725 F.2d 1561, 1577 (11th Cir. 1984); United 

States v. Margiotta, 688 F.2d 108, 133 (2d Cir. 1982) overruled on 

other grounds by McNally v. United States, 483 U.S. 350 (1987). 

The two Supreme Court cases on which the defendant pins 

his hopes do not suggest a different result. See Evans, 504 U.S. 

255; McCormick, 500 U.S. 257. In each of those cases, the Court 

"simply had no reason to address" whether a public official can be 
- 44 -

convicted of "official right" extortion when he does not "receive[] 

a personal benefit separate and apart from having 'brought about 

a transfer of property to another.'" Brissette, 919 F.3d at 679-

80 (internal alterations omitted) (quoting Scheidler, 537 U.S. at 

408 n.13). 

By the same token, Wilkie v. Robbins, 551 U.S. 537, does 

not spring to the defendant's rescue. There, the Court clarified 

that "official right" extortion includes "the sale of public favors 

for private gain," but not "efforts of Government employees to get 

property for the exclusive benefit of the Government." Id. at 

564-65. That is a far cry from saying that the public official 

must personally receive an unlawful payment in order to be guilty 

of extortion.

To say more on this point would be supererogatory.4 We 

conclude that there was sufficient evidence from which a reasonable

jury could find that the defendant extorted Bairos. The jury heard 

evidence that — over the course of several months in 2018 and 2019

— Bairos paid Costa $77,550 through a combination of cash and in4 We do not address the defendant's argument (which by his 

own admission he raises solely for preservation purposes) that 

Evans was wrongly decided. Cf. Agostini v. Felton, 521 U.S. 203, 

237 (1997) ("If a precedent of this Court has direct application 

in a case, yet appears to rest on reasons rejected in some other 

line of decisions, the Court of Appeals should follow the case 

which directly controls, leaving to this Court the prerogative of 

overruling its own decisions." (quoting Rodriguez de Quijas v. 

Shearson/Am. Exp., Inc., 490 U.S. 477, 484 (1989))).
- 45 -

kind payments. It also heard evidence sufficient to ground a 

conclusion that Costa — in receiving the bribes — was acting in 

concert with the defendant. That evidence, if credited by the 

jury, was sufficient to satisfy the Hobbs Act's "obtaining of 

property" element. See Brissette, 919 F.3d at 680.

Although Costa testified that he kept all the money for 

himself, the jury could infer that both Bairos and the defendant

believed that the payments were made in exchange for the 

defendant's issuance of a non-opposition letter and host community 

agreement on Bairos's behalf. Both text-message evidence and 

Costa's testimony supported the inference that the defendant had 

agreed to receive money in exchange for the letters. To cinch the 

matter, Bairos testified that the defendant had asked him about 

the status of the payments on several occasions. 

All in all, the evidence was sufficient to furnish a 

foundation for the extortion convictions involving the defendant's 

interactions with Pichette and Bairos.

IV

The defendant next argues that evidence admitted with 

respect to the charges of which he was acquitted unfairly tainted 

the jury's findings against him on the convictions that remain. 

Specifically, he argues that he was prejudiced by "evidentiary 

spillover" resulting from the "transference of guilt" from the ten 
- 46 -

counts that the district court dismissed in a post-trial ruling.5 

United States v. Wihbey, 75 F.3d 761, 774 (1st Cir. 1996) (quoting 

United States v. Sutherland, 929 F.2d 765, 772-73 (1st Cir. 1991)). 

Relatedly, the defendant argues that the government introduced 

themes in its evidentiary presentation undergirding the dismissed 

charges (such as that he "was 'the type of person' who would do 

anything to enrich himself") that unfairly reinforced the 

remaining counts of conviction. Finally, he argues that seemingly 

credible witness testimony and documentary evidence introduced in 

connection with the dismissed counts "lent a false sense of 

corroboration to the corruption case."

The defendant first raised the issue of prejudicial 

spillover in his post-trial motion for a new trial. The district 

court rejected the defendant's plaint. The court took pains to 

note that the jury had been "very careful" and had reached a 

"discriminating verdict."

"We review the district court's denial of a new trial 

based on allegations of prejudicial spillover for abuse of 

discretion." Simon, 12 F.4th at 44. Prejudicial spillover "occurs 

when the evidence admitted to prove a charge as to which the 

defendant was acquitted 'was so extensive, inflammatory, and 

prejudicial that it necessarily spilled over into the jury's 

5 The government does not appeal this ruling, and we do not 

address its merits.
- 47 -

consideration of his guilt on other charges.'" Id. at 43 (internal 

alteration omitted) (quoting United States v. Mubayyid, 658 F.3d 

35, 72 (1st Cir. 2011)). "To determine whether an unacceptable 

threat of prejudicial spillover materialized, we must evaluate 

whether the record evinces 'a serious risk that the joinder of 

offenses compromised a specific trial right or prevented the jury 

from making a reliable judgment about guilt or innocence.'" Id.

(internal alterations and quotation marks omitted) (quoting 

Mubayyid, 658 F.3d at 72). "The devoir of persuasion rests with 

the defendant to show 'prejudice so pervasive that a miscarriage 

of justice looms.'" Id. at 43-44 (quoting United States v. 

Trainor, 477 F.3d 24, 36 (1st Cir. 2007)).

Here, we discern no abuse of discretion in the district 

court's determination that the threat of prejudicial spillover did 

not require a new trial. To begin, we address the defendant's 

contention that he was prejudiced by the wire- and tax-fraud 

evidence incidental to the dismissed counts — evidence that he 

claims was irrelevant to the Hobbs Act counts. Much of this 

evidence, he says, would have been inadmissible in a trial limited 

to the remaining counts of conviction. 

We consider this argument in two parts, beginning with 

the evidence that was admitted on the six dismissed wire-fraud 

counts. The district court supportably found that much of the 

evidence on those counts would have been admissible in connection 
- 48 -

with the remaining charges. The court viewed the evidence as 

admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b)(2) to prove the 

defendant's intent, which the court noted was the "core relevant 

issue in this case." United States v. Correia, 2022 WL 1004200, 

at *6 (D. Mass. Apr. 4, 2022). And "[t]o the degree that the 

evidence was prejudicial," the court observed, "it was not unfairly 

so." Id. at *4; see Fed. R. Evid. 403; see also United States v. 

Rodriguez-Estrada, 877 F.2d 153, 156 (1st Cir. 1989) ("By design, 

all evidence is meant to be prejudicial; it is only unfair

prejudice which must be avoided." (emphasis in original)).

We conclude that the district court did not abuse its 

discretion in finding no significant spillover prejudice from the 

six dismissed wire-fraud counts. Importantly, three other wirefraud counts resulted in still-standing convictions — so any trial 

that included those counts would have involved much of the same 

evidence regarding how the defendant misled investors and used 

company funds for his personal benefit. See United States v. 

Zimny, 873 F.3d 38, 60 (1st Cir. 2017) (rejecting spillover claim 

when some evidence "would still have been relevant and admissible 

to [some of] the counts" of conviction); see also United States v. 

Edgar, 82 F.3d 499, 504-05 (1st Cir. 1996) (finding no prejudicial 

spillover from evidence on acquitted count when "[s]ome of the 

[same] evidence . . . would have been admissible" with respect to 

counts of conviction). And even if some modest amount of evidence 
- 49 -

on the six dismissed wire-fraud counts would have been inadmissible 

in a case winnowed down to the Hobbs Act counts and a subset of 

the wire-fraud counts, the evidence was not so "extensive, 

inflammatory, and prejudicial" that it was apt to have affected 

the jury's consideration of the defendant's guilt or innocence. 

Simon, 12 F.4th at 43 (quoting Mubayyid, 658 F.3d at 72).

The second part of the defendant's argument targets the 

evidence admitted on the tax-fraud counts (all of which were 

dismissed by the district court in its post-trial ruling). But 

once again, the district court refused to grant a new trial based 

on spillover prejudice, invoking Federal Rule of Evidence 

404(b)(2) and noting that much of the tax-fraud evidence would 

still have been admissible in the context of the remaining charges. 

We need not tarry. Even assuming, for argument's sake, 

that the evidence related to the tax-fraud counts would not have 

been admissible in relation to the Hobbs Act counts, we discern no 

abuse of discretion in the district court's rebuff of the spillover 

prejudice claim.6 

6 We limit our analysis to the question of whether the evidence 

admitted on the dismissed tax-fraud counts led to spillover 

prejudice vis-à-vis the Hobbs Act counts. The defendant has not 

developed any argument that the evidence admitted on the tax-fraud 

counts prejudiced him with respect to the three remaining wirefraud convictions. See United States v. Zannino, 895 F.2d 1, 17 

(1st Cir. 1990).
- 50 -

For one thing, the government's tax-fraud evidence was

neither inflammatory nor unfairly prejudicial. One reliable 

measure of whether evidence can be considered inflammatory or 

unfairly prejudicial is "whether the evidence on the reversed 

count[s] would have tended to incite or arouse the jury into 

convicting the defendant on the remaining counts." United States

v. Rooney, 37 F.3d 847, 855 (2d Cir. 1994). The government's taxfraud evidence consisted primarily of the defendant's tax returns, 

spreadsheets documenting money the defendant owed to SnoOwl, an 

accountant's files, and the testimony of two tax professionals. 

Much of this evidence was dry as dust and — at any rate — it 

resembled in kind parts of the evidence properly admitted to prove 

the still-standing wire-fraud convictions (such as bank records, 

credit card statements, receipts, and the testimony of an IRS 

agent). Given its nature, there is no realistic possibility that 

the tax-fraud evidence was prejudicial to such a degree that it 

would have improperly influenced the jury's disposition of the 

Hobbs Act charges. Cf. Mubayyid, 658 F.3d at 40-43, 73 (finding 

evidence of defendants' support of terrorist organizations and 

"violent jihad" did not unfairly prejudice jury against defendants 

on counts of, among other things, tax fraud and making false 

statements to federal agency).

For another thing, there were sufficient dissimilarities 

between the evidentiary presentations on the tax-fraud and Hobbs 
- 51 -

Act counts to make it easy for the jury to differentiate among the 

discrete charges. As other courts have observed, the degree to 

which "charges are intertwined with each other" and the extent to 

which "the evidence for the remaining counts is sufficiently 

distinct" are factors that shed light on the likelihood that the 

jury was able to compartmentalize evidence relevant to different 

groups of charges. United States v. Wright, 665 F.3d 560, 575 (3d 

Cir. 2012) (quoting United States v. Murphy, 323 F.3d 102, 118 (3d 

Cir. 2003)); see Rooney, 37 F.3d at 856. "[W]hen the reversed and 

remaining counts arise from completely distinct fact patterns and 

the evidence can be easily compartmentalized," it is more likely 

that the jury was able to "evaluate[] each count on the specific 

evidence attributed to it." Rooney, 37 F.3d at 856; see Mubayyid, 

658 F.3d at 73.

This is such a case. Here, the Hobbs Act evidence 

focused on the defendant's alleged bribe-taking from marijuana 

vendors during his tenure as mayor. The tax-fraud evidence, by 

contrast, focused on his private-sector handling of SnoOwl funds 

during an earlier period and before he was elected to office. That 

latter evidence was sufficiently distinct from the Hobbs Act 

evidence to dissipate the threat of spillover prejudice. On this 

record, we are confident that the jury would have been able to 

compartmentalize and apply the distinct bodies of evidence to the 
- 52 -

separate groups of charges. See United States v. Portela, 167 

F.3d 687, 701 (1st Cir. 1999).

Our conclusion that there was no spillover prejudice 

from the reversed counts is fortified by the fact that the jury 

acquitted the defendant on two of the Hobbs Act counts and the 

lone bribery count. Put simply, the jury returned a discriminating 

verdict — and a discriminating verdict is an indication that 

spillover prejudice did not infect the jury's decisional calculus. 

As we have said, the fact that the jury's findings distinguished 

among counts can be "evidence that no spillover prejudice 

occurred." Simon, 12 F.4th at 44; see Edgar, 82 F.3d at 504 

(holding that jury's acquittal on one of several counts 

demonstrated harmlessness of spillover evidence). In a case like 

this one, in which the jury rendered a judgment of conviction "on 

only some of the charges, we are particularly reluctant to presume 

that the jury was unable to compartmentalize the evidence of each 

offense." Mubayyid, 658 F.3d at 74. But a caveat is in order:

because the jury acquitted on only three counts — counts unrelated 

to the counts of conviction — we give the jury's discerning verdict 

less weight than we ordinarily might. 

We add that the basics for believing that the jury was 

able to compartmentalize is strengthened by the district judge's 

evaluation. After all, the district judge — a veteran presider —

saw the relevant events unfold at first hand and had a unique 
- 53 -

opportunity to assess the trial's dynamics. When — as in this 

case — the trial judge assesses the possibility of spillover 

prejudice and finds that possibility to be chimerical, an appellate 

court ought to give that assessment great weight. See United 

States v. Sam Goody, Inc., 675 F.2d 17, 26 n.9 (2d Cir. 1982) 

(recognizing that a "trial judge is better situated than" an 

appellate court to assess the "presence and effect" of factors 

leading to spillover prejudice).

It bears mentioning, too, that the district court did 

yeomen's work in protecting against the possibility of unfair 

prejudice. We have held that the district court adequately guards 

"against potential spillover prejudice by instructing the jury to 

consider the evidence separately as to each count." United States

v. Bailey, 405 F.3d 102, 112 (1st Cir. 2005); see Trainor, 477 

F.3d at 36 n.23; United States v. Tracy, 989 F.2d 1279, 1284 (1st 

Cir. 1993). The court did that here by telling the jury in 

substance — not once, but three times — that it was required to 

consider each of the counts separately; that it needed to parse 

the facts and circumstances in evidence regarding each count 

individually; and that its decision on any one count did not 

necessarily mean that it should reach the same decision on other 

related counts.

The defendant tries to parry this thrust by arguing that 

the district court should have instructed the jury that it needed 
- 54 -

to consider the "groups" of charges separately. The failure to do 

so, the defendant says, may have implied to the jurors that they 

could conflate the evidence underlying the different groups of 

charges. But no such instruction was requested, nor did the 

defendant object to the charge on this ground. And in all events, 

no such instruction was required. In Zimny, for example, we held 

that a jury instruction nearly identical to the one given here was 

sufficient to protect against spillover prejudice notwithstanding 

that the district court had explicitly "told the jurors that the 

[assertedly unrelated] offenses were related." 873 F.3d at 59-

60. We conclude, therefore, that the court's instructions guarded 

adequately against any cognizable risk of spillover prejudice.

The defendant tries to undermine the verdict from yet 

another angle. In a variation on his principal argument, the 

defendant suggests that he suffered spillover prejudice by virtue 

of the government's use of elements of the wire- and tax-fraud 

case to introduce themes that reinforced its Hobbs Act case. 

Specifically, the defendant says that the government used the wireand tax-fraud case as a vehicle for portraying him as having a 

criminal disposition. Moreover, he says that the government 

injected the theme that he led a "lavish lifestyle" and would do 

or say "anything to enrich himself." In support, the defendant 

points mainly to comments that the government made during opening 

and closing statements to the jury.
- 55 -

The record provides some grounding for these arguments. 

In both its opening and closing statements, the government made 

comments that might be construed to suggest that the defendant had 

a criminal propensity. In its summation, for instance, the 

government stated (in relation to the tax-fraud charges) that 

"someone who says he has partners when it makes him look good but 

no partners when it costs him money [in taxes] is someone who will 

say anything to get what he wants." But neither this comment nor 

the other comments identified by the defendant drew any 

contemporaneous objection from defense counsel. And in all events, 

those comments were not sufficiently egregious or inflammatory to 

warrant a new trial. See United States v. Fattah, 914 F.3d 112, 

189 (3d Cir. 2019); United States v. Henry, 325 F.3d 93, 109-10 

(2d Cir. 2003). 

The same is true of the statements linking the 

defendant's spending habits to political corruption. The 

defendant's strongest example is a comment made by the government 

in its closing statements to the effect that the defendant "would 

and did say anything to anyone to get what he wanted," including 

by "convinc[ing] and persuad[ing] people from all walks of life, 

from a trusting [investor] to rough-and-tumble street guys, to do 

what he wanted, and what he wanted was money, and what he wanted 

was power. Money he was willing to steal and power he was willing 

to sell." This statement, too — and its cousins in the record —
- 56 -

drew no contemporaneous objection from defense counsel. And at 

any rate, this line of argument was not sufficiently egregious or 

inflammatory to warrant a new trial. See Fattah, 914 F.3d at 189 

(declining to deem reference to defendants' "lies and deception" 

inflammatory). 

Even so, our opinion should not be read as an endorsement 

of the statements made by the prosecutor. As a general matter, 

prosecutors would do well to refrain from using such statements in 

the future. Under abuse of discretion review and viewed in context 

of the record as a whole, however, the prosecutor's comments —

though inelegant — are insufficient to warrant annulment of the 

jury verdict on the ground of prejudicial spillover. See Henry, 

325 F.3d at 109-10.

Our conclusion that the purported thematic connections

did not give rise to prejudicial spillover is reinforced by the 

strength of the district court's instructions. As we have said, 

the district court substantially lessened the risk that the jury 

would conflate the wire- and tax-fraud charges with the Hobbs Act 

charges by instructing in unmistakable terms that each count should

be considered separately. See Bailey, 405 F.3d at 112. Just as 

those instructions minimized the risk that the jury would 

improperly conflate the evidence, so too did those instructions 

safeguard against the possibility that the jury would seize upon 

the prosecutor's comments to forge impermissible thematic links.
- 57 -

Finally, the defendant strives to persuade us that the 

cumulative effect of the dismissed wire- and tax-fraud counts 

clouded the jury's ability to assess the evidence. Specifically, 

the defendant claims that, absent the wire- and tax-fraud evidence, 

the jury would have more carefully scrutinized the government's 

evidence and witnesses regarding the Hobbs Act counts. In other 

words, the defendant exhorts us to find that the credible evidence 

on the dismissed counts lent a false sense of corroboration to the 

counts of conviction. As an example, the defendant points to 

Costa's testimony and says that, without the testimony of the 

credible wire- and tax-fraud witnesses and the volume of evidence 

introduced in support of those charges, the jury likely would not 

have "accepted Costa's testimony at face value."

We are not convinced. For a start, the defendant's 

assent to a joint trial meant that the jury would be presented 

with evidence relating to both SnoOwl and the defendant's alleged 

extortion of marijuana vendors as mayor. And because three of the 

wire-fraud convictions remain standing, the jury would have heard 

much of the same wire-fraud evidence in any event. Last — but far 

from least — we afford appreciable deference to jury determinations 

of witness credibility. See United States v. Carroll, 105 F.3d 

740, 743 (1st Cir. 1997) (noting that "[c]redibility 

determinations are . . . squarely within the jury's domain"). 

Given these facts and given the extensive evidence undergirding 
- 58 -

the Hobbs Act convictions, the defendant has failed to show 

"prejudice so pervasive that a miscarriage of justice looms." 

Simon, 12 F.4th at 43-44 (quoting Trainor, 477 F.3d at 36).

We add a coda. We do not gainsay that, in particular 

cases, spillover prejudice may be inimical to a defendant's fairtrial right. In this case, though, the record makes manifest that 

the district court was sensitive to this danger and carefully 

guarded against it. We discern no abuse of discretion in the 

court's refusal to order a new trial based on the claim of 

spillover prejudice.

V

Battling on, the defendant challenges the form and 

substance of the district court's jury instructions. "The scope 

of our review is shaped by whether [the appellant] properly raised 

and preserved an objection to the instructions at trial." United 

States v. Gonzalez, 570 F.3d 16, 21 (1st Cir. 2009) (quoting Jones

v. United States, 527 U.S. 373, 387 (1999)). We review preserved 

objections to the wording and form of instructions for abuse of 

discretion. See id. We review preserved claims of error that 

target the substance of the instructions — that is, whether they 

conveyed the essence of the applicable law — de novo. See United 

States v. De La Cruz, 835 F.3d 1, 12 (1st Cir. 2016); United States

v. Sasso, 695 F.3d 25, 29 (1st Cir. 2012). So, too, preserved 
- 59 -

objections to the omission of necessary jury instructions engender 

de novo review. See De La Cruz, 835 F.3d at 12. 

Unpreserved claims of error stand on a different 

footing. We review all such claims, regardless of whether they go 

to the wording, form, or substance of the instructions, for plain 

error. See United States v. Goris, 876 F.3d 40, 46 (1st Cir. 

2017). Under this standard, a conviction may only be disturbed if 

the defendant shoulders the heavy burden of proving "(1) that an 

error occurred (2) which was clear or obvious and which not only 

(3) affected the defendant's substantial rights, but also (4) 

seriously impaired the fairness, integrity, or public reputation 

of judicial proceedings." United States v. Duarte, 246 F.3d 56, 

60 (1st Cir. 2001). The party claiming "plain error must carry 

the devoir of persuasion as to all four of the[] elements" embedded 

in this construct. United States v. Pinkham, 896 F.3d 133, 136-

37 (1st Cir. 2018).

A

The defendant's first claim of instructional error is 

that the district court abused its discretion by submitting 

fractional written instructions to the jury that did not include

overarching instructions on concepts such as the presumption of 
- 60 -

innocence, reasonable doubt, and witness credibility. Some 

background helps to set the stage.

The district court's charge, given ore sponte at the 

conclusion of the trial, fully covered the concepts of the 

presumption of innocence, reasonable doubt, and witness 

credibility. The defendant does not fault those instructions. 

But the court then proceeded to give the jury portions of its 

instructions, in writing, to take into the jury room. These 

portions included a description of the elements of the crimes 

charged and what the government was required to prove. They did 

not, however, include the court's instructions on the presumption 

of innocence, reasonable doubt, and witness credibility. That 

said, the court cautioned the jury "not to get too entranced by 

the written instructions" and reminded the jurors that they could 

not "disregard" the "foundational kinds of issues, like the idea 

that the government must prove each essential element beyond a 

reasonable doubt [and] that the defendant is presumed innocent."

The defendant contends that the court underemphasized

the latter concepts and the concept of witness credibility by 

excluding them from the fractional portions of its charge that 

were reduced to writing and sent into the jury room. We assume 

for argument's sake that this contention was preserved.7 As such, 

7 The defendant voiced this objection during the pre-charge 

conference, but the district court brushed it aside. The court
- 61 -

it engenders review for abuse of discretion. Evaluating the 

contention on this basis, we find it unconvincing.

A district court enjoys "considerable discretion in how 

it formulates, structures, and words its jury instructions." 

United States v. Prigmore, 243 F.3d 1, 17 (1st Cir. 2001). That 

discretion extends to decisions about whether to submit written 

instructions to the jury. See United States v. Previte, 648 F.2d 

73, 84 (1st Cir. 1981). The defendant argues that this discretion 

is nonetheless cabined: in his view, the court may only submit 

either the written version of its complete charge or nothing at 

all.

Our evaluation of this all-or-nothing proposition is 

guided by our decision in United States v. Parent, 954 F.2d 23 

(1st Cir. 1992). There, the district court submitted a written 

excerpt of its charge in response to the jury's request for a 

written supplemental instruction. See id. at 24. We noted that, 

by submitting only a portion of the charge, the court elevated the 

told the defendant that he could clarify the objection after the 

court had delivered the charge and sent the jurors to deliberate. 

Following the court's lead, the defendant objected again at that 

time. The defendant should have raised the objection before the 

jury was sent to deliberate. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 30(d); see also

United States v. Serrano-Delgado, 29 F.4th 16, 25 (1st Cir. 2022) 

("[W]e deem objections to jury instructions automatically 

unpreserved unless made after the instructions are given and before 

the jury retires."). But that failure may well be absolved because 

defense counsel appears to have been acting pursuant to the 

district court's explicit instructions. 
- 62 -

risk that the jury would place undue weight on the portion of the 

charge committed to writing. See id. at 26. But we also noted 

that it was not "per se error for a judge, having charged orally, 

to honor a jury's request for a written supplemental instruction." 

Id. at 27 (emphasis in original). And we went on to admonish that 

"if a fractional written supplement is to be used following the 

entirety of an oral charge, the judge must be extremely careful to 

avoid the possibility of prejudicial emphasis." Id. Finally, we 

suggested that a district court might guard against prejudicial 

emphasis "by carefully reminding the jury of other aspects of the 

original charge and cautioning them that the segment of the charge 

which is amplified or explained should be considered in the light 

of the other instructions and is not to be given undue weight." 

Id. (quoting Beardshall v. Minuteman Press Int'l, Inc., 664 F.2d 

23, 28 (3d Cir. 1981)). Parent leaves no doubt that the 

defendant's all-or-nothing proposition is not good law.

The question remains, though, whether the district court 

acted within the encincture of its discretion in deciding to submit

these particular fractional written instructions to the jury. We 

approach that question with care, mindful that submitting

fractional written instructions to a jury is always a risky 

business. A district court's employment of such a praxis always 

must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. In this instance, we

find that the district court stepped carefully in Parent's 
- 63 -

footprints and successfully "avoid[ed] the possibility of 

prejudicial emphasis." Id. During its initial charge to the jury, 

the court eloquently elaborated the concepts of the presumption of 

innocence, reasonable doubt, and the importance of judging witness 

credibility. It referred to those concepts repeatedly throughout 

its instructions on the elements of the different categories of 

offenses. Then — immediately before it submitted the fractional 

written excerpts to the jurors — the court warned them not to "get 

too entranced by the written instructions." And the court wisely

reminded the jurors of the "foundational . . . issues" such as 

"that the government must prove each essential element beyond a 

reasonable doubt [and] that the defendant is presumed innocent." 

The court then directed the jurors to "keep all of those in mind" 

and not "disregard them."

Viewed against this backdrop, we discern no abuse of the 

district court's wide discretion. To begin, we think it important 

that the submission of the fractional written instructions to the 

jury was made as part of the charge as a whole (and not in response 

to a mid-deliberation jury question). Moreover, although the 

fractional written instructions were incomplete, the court gave 

the jury suitable warnings about placing too much emphasis on them. 

It also explicitly reminded the jury of the reasonable-doubt 

standard and the presumption of innocence. We presume that juries 

follow instructions given by the district court, see United States
- 64 -

v. Bradshaw, 281 F.3d 278, 292 (1st Cir. 2002), and the defendant 

has advanced no credible reason for eschewing that presumption 

here.

Let us be perfectly clear. Our opinion should not be 

read to condone the district court's approach as per se acceptable. 

But in the circumstances of this case, we do not think that the 

court abused its discretion, given the safeguards that it employed 

to limit the possibility that the jury would place undue weight on 

the fractional written instructions.

B

The defendant also challenges the substance of the jury 

instructions in three respects. Because none of these challenges 

was preserved, we review them for plain error. See Goris, 876 

F.3d at 46. "[T]he plain error hurdle, high in all events, nowhere 

looms larger than in the context of alleged instructional errors." 

United States v. Paniagua-Ramos, 251 F.3d 242, 246 (1st Cir. 2001). 

It is "the rare case in which an improper instruction will justify 

reversal of a criminal conviction when no objection has been made 

in the trial court." Gonzalez, 570 F.3d at 21 (quoting United 

States v. Weston, 960 F.2d 212, 216 (1st Cir. 1992)). This is not 

that rare case.

1

The defendant submits that the district court should 

have instructed the jury to consider the different "groups" of 
- 65 -

crimes separately. He takes issue with the fact that, when the 

court instructed the jury on the elements of the various groups of 

crimes charged, it introduced each new group with a version of the 

following instruction:

You must consider each of these counts, 

they're separate counts, each of these counts 

on the facts and circumstances of the evidence 

regarding them separately. Your decision as to 

any one of those counts does not necessarily 

mean that you will reach the same decision 

with respect to any other of those counts. 

They stand on their own and are evaluated on 

their own.

In the defendant's view, this type of instruction may have led the 

jurors to believe that they could draw inferences as to the 

defendant's guilt across groups even if they understood that they 

could not do the same within groups.

We think that the defendant's fears are overblown. The 

chief difficulty with his argument — beyond the stark fact that 

the defendant did not make the argument below — is that a jury 

instruction "must be evaluated not in isolation but in the context 

of the entire charge." See Gonzalez, 570 F.3d at 21 (quoting 

Jones, 527 U.S. at 391). Looking to the charge as a whole, we 

find ample reason to believe that the jury was adequately 

instructed about its obligation to assess each count — both across 

and within groups — individually. 

Notably, the defendant does not suggest that the

district court failed to instruct the jury on the specific elements 
- 66 -

of each group of charges. Nor could he: the court was careful to 

explain that the government was required to prove each element of 

each offense beyond a reasonable doubt. In this way, the court 

highlighted that the counts were distinct. Cf. Trainor, 477 F.3d 

at 36 n.23 (emphasizing that district court instructed jury that 

each count was separate and that government had to prove each 

element of each count beyond a reasonable doubt); United States v. 

Chambers, 964 F.2d 1250, 1251 (1st Cir. 1992) (similar).

Equally as important, the verdict slip required that the 

jury make an individual determination of the defendant's guilt or 

innocence on each and all of the twenty-four charged counts. See, 

e.g., United States v. Saunders, 553 F.3d 81, 85 (1st Cir. 2009) 

(noting with approval that verdict slip differentiated between all 

counts). The court — in telling the jurors about the verdict slip 

— explained "that [the slip] w[ould] show you how each one of these 

counts is separate and requires a separate determination by each 

of you in which you're asked to answer not guilty or guilty with 

respect to those counts." Although this explanation was given

after the court had instructed the jury on the elements of wire 

fraud, the court later emphasized that the verdict slip required 

the jurors to assess "whether or not [the government] proved beyond 

a reasonable doubt each essential element of the offenses that are 

reflected in that . . . slip" — thereby reinforcing the separate

and distinct nature of all twenty-four counts.
- 67 -

The best evidence that the district court charge 

adequately conveyed the separate nature of the counts is the jury's 

discriminating verdict. That verdict is strong evidence that the 

jurors fully understood that their decision on one count was 

separate and distinct from their decisions on the other counts. 

See, e.g., United States v. Brennan, 994 F.2d 918, 925 (1st Cir. 

1993) (noting that "discriminating verdict suggests to us that the 

jury was fully able to follow the court's instructions and 

differentiate between the counts"); United States v. Boylan, 898 

F.2d 230, 246 (1st Cir. 1990) (concluding that discriminating 

verdict, in and of itself, "evidenced that the jurors were able 

to, and did, follow the court's instructions"). 

To say more would be to paint the lily. There was no 

plain error in the district court's instructions regarding the 

separate nature of the counts.

2

The defendant's next claim of instructional error 

targets the district court's jury instructions with respect to the 

counts charging him with extortion under color of official right. 

The court, he says, should have instructed the jury that it had to 

find that he personally benefited from each extortive scheme. 

This claim of error entails — albeit in different garb 

— a view of the law that we already have debunked. See supra Part 

III(C)(2). We see no reason to repastinate soil that has already 
- 68 -

been well-plowed. Suffice it to say that there was no plain error 

in this respect.

3

In his last claim of instructional error, the defendant 

asserts that the district court's instructions regarding 

conspiracy to commit extortion failed adequately to explain the 

applicable law. As he envisions it, the court should have 

indicated that when consent or acquiescence is inherent in the 

underlying substantive offense, "something more than bare consent 

or acquiescence may be needed to prove that the person was a 

conspirator." Ocasio, 578 U.S. at 292. Absent such an 

instruction, the defendant suggests, the jury could have found a 

conspiratorial arrangement between the defendant and a bribe-payer 

(say, Pichette or Saliby) based on the latter's mere acquiescence

in the payment of the bribe.

Even if we assume that the omission of the proposed 

instruction was error — a matter on which we take no view — the 

defendant stumbles at the second step of the plain error construct. 

At that step, the defendant must make an incremental showing: he 

must show a "clear or obvious" error. Duarte, 246 F.3d at 60. A 

clear or obvious error is one that "at the very least, 

contradict[s] existing law." United States v. Gonzalez, 981 F.3d 

11, 22 (1st Cir. 2020), cert. denied, 141 S. Ct. 1710 (2021); see

United States v. Rabb, 5 F.4th 95, 101 (1st Cir. 2021) (describing 
- 69 -

such an error as one that "is contrary to existing law" or 

"'indisputable' in light of controlling law" (quoting United 

States v. Jones, 748 F.3d 64, 69-70 (1st Cir. 2014))). We do not 

think that the court's omission of the belatedly sought instruction 

can fairly be said to have surmounted that high threshold.

As said, to prove that the defendant was guilty of 

conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act extortion, the government was 

required to show that he conspired to obtain property from another, 

with the other's consent, under color of official right — meaning, 

in practical terms, that he conspired to obtain a payment to which 

he was not entitled, knowing that the payment was made in return 

for an official act. See Ocasio, 578 U.S. at 285 (quoting Evans, 

504 U.S. at 268); Turner, 684 F.3d at 253. And to prove the 

requisite conspiracy, the government had to "show, inter alia, 

that an agreement or working relationship existed, that it had an 

unlawful purpose, and that the defendant was a voluntary 

participant in it." Echeverri, 982 F.2d at 679 (emphasis in 

original).

The district court's instructions regarding conspiracy 

to commit extortion tracked these elements. The court told the 

jury that, to find the defendant guilty of conspiring to violate 

the Hobbs Act, it had to find that he "willfully" entered into an 

"agreement" with "at least one other person" to "commit extortion 

under color of official right." The court added that the 
- 70 -

government must "prove beyond a reasonable doubt that those who 

were involved [in the agreement] shared a general understanding 

about the object of their agreement" and warned that "[m]ere 

similarity of conduct among various people or the fact that they 

may have associated together with each other or discussed common 

[aims] and interests does not necessarily establish proof of the 

existence of a conspiracy." The court's partial written 

instructions recapitulated these points. 

It also bears mention that the court — in both its oral 

and written instructions — made clear that the "agreement" which 

the jury needed to find was the agreement specified in the relevant 

count of the indictment and "not some other agreement with other 

people involving other things." The indictment — itself sent to 

the jury — charged that Brayton, Bairos, Pichette, and Saliby were 

"[v]ictim[s]" of the defendant's extortionate scheme, not coconspirators, and that the defendant had conspired to commit Hobbs 

Act extortion by "obtaining property" from those "victims" with 

their consent.8

8 For the sake of completeness, we note that elsewhere in his 

brief, the defendant concedes that, in a jury note, the jury 

"distinguished between 'member of conspiracy' and 'victim.'" 

According to the defendant, that distinction demonstrates that the 

jury "understood the prosecution's trial theory to be that Mr. 

Correia agreed with Hebert and Andrade to extort Pichette and 

Saliby, respectively." Taking the defense at its word, then, the 

jury did not understand the government's theory to be that Pichette 

and Saliby were simultaneously victims and the lone coconspirators of the respective extortion schemes, such that the 
- 71 -

Even if the court's instructions may not have been 

letter-perfect, they "constitute[d] a fair statement of the 

applicable law concerning" conspiracy to commit extortion under 

the Hobbs Act. Paniagua-Ramos, 251 F.3d at 247. At the very 

least, the instructions were not "contrary to existing law." Rabb, 

5 F.4th at 101. 

We hold, therefore, that — in the absence of a 

contemporaneous objection — the district court did not commit clear 

or obvious error by failing to instruct the jury sua sponte that 

"something more than bare consent" was needed to prove extortion 

conspiracy. Plain error was plainly absent.

VI

The defendant's final claim of error posits that alleged 

prosecutorial misconduct during closing argument compromised his 

right to a fair trial. This claim has a porous foundation: the 

defendant did not contemporaneously challenge the conduct of which

he now complains, nor did he challenge it in his post-trial motion. 

Our review, therefore, is only for plain error. See United States

v. Walker-Couvertier, 860 F.3d 1, 10 (1st Cir. 2017).

We first supply some context. During his closing, the 

prosecutor played and referred to a video clip, previously admitted 

into evidence, which was excerpted from a 2015 mayoral campaign 

government would need to show that their payment of bribes amounted 

to more than "mere acquiescence." Ocasio, 578 U.S. at 298. 
- 72 -

debate. Early in the debate, the defendant had touted his 

entrepreneurial accomplishments and cited SnoOwl as the pièce de 

résistance. In the video clip, the defendant's opponent challenged 

the defendant to:

Show us the proof. It looks to me as if SnoOwl 

isn't doing much of anything. How much money 

did you borrow to get SnoOwl started? And have 

you paid any of your investors back? Because 

once again, that's something that the public 

deserves to know. My record over the past 10 

years in public life is an absolute open book. 

You – yours is the opposite of that.

The defendant responded:

[My opponent] is again showing his 

inexperience in the business community. An 

investor is a partner in your business. It's 

not a loan. We have taken in hundreds of 

thousands of dollars from investors, and our 

goal is to get them a return on their 

investment. That's exactly what I do. And 

that's why I am running for mayor, because I 

am going to take your ta[x] dollars, and I'm 

going to invest them in the right places. 

. . . I am going to take your money and spend 

it wisely. That's what I do in my business. 

You can talk to any of my investor-partners, 

and they'll tell you they love SnoOwl, they 

love their investment. It's not a loan. It's 

not a debt. The word "investor" means 

"partner." They are partners in my company.

The prosecutor played this clip three times during his 

closing, all in the portion dedicated to the fraud charges. The 

first time he played it he asked the jury to compare what the 

defendant "said to the voters of Fall River in that October 2015 

mayoral debate" with the testimony of the defendant's ex-
- 73 -

girlfriend, who had testified to some of the defendant's 

extravagant spending habits. After that display of the video clip, 

the prosecutor said:

Spend it wisely? Like he does in his business? 

$32,118 on [his ex-girlfriend], $3,000 at the 

Intercontinental, Tiffany jewelry, $18,000 in 

personal purchases, campaign literature and 

stickers. Spend it wisely? He had no problem 

looking the voters right in the eye and 

telling them he spent this money wisely, 

knowing it wasn't true. Think about that. It 

tells you a lot.

Later in his summation, the prosecutor again used the 

video clip (this time when deriding the defendant's boasts about 

SnoOwl). Before playing the clip, the prosecutor suggested that 

the jurors should "remember again . . . when the defendant stood 

before the voters and touted what he had done for SnoOwl." Then

— after the video clip had been shown — the prosecutor commented:

"That's exactly what I do. I get them a return 

on their investment." That's what he said to 

the voters in October of 2015. But think about 

that statement in the context of what the bank 

records for SnoOwl actually showed at that 

very time. The Citizens account in October of 

2015 had $69. Hundreds of thousands gone. $69. 

The BayCoast account, negative $709, the same 

month. 

Folks, someone who can look the voters in the 

eye and say he got his investors a return when 

he knows negative $600 is what the company has 

and that the app is dead, that is someone who 

will say anything to get what he wants.

The prosecutor's last use of the video clip occurred in 

connection with the tax-fraud charges. Specifically, that use 
- 74 -

occurred when the prosecutor was discussing the defendant's tax 

returns and the question of whether the defendant cheated on his 

taxes by claiming SnoOwl was a sole proprietorship as opposed to 

a partnership. Again, the prosecutor asked the jury to remember 

what the defendant said when he "looked the voters in the 

eye . . . when he was questioned about SnoOwl and whether there 

were loans." The prosecutor played the video clip for a third 

time and then remarked:

Couldn't be clearer, right? October 2015, 

Jasiel Correia has partners. Then somehow in 

2017 when he has to amend his returns and 

partners will cost him tens of thousands of 

dollars in tax liability, those partners 

disappear. He files a sole proprietorship 

return. Magically, the partners, just the way 

SnoOwl did in 2015, have disappeared. Now he's 

supposedly a sole proprietorship, one owner. 

Not true. And someone who says he has partners 

when it makes him look good but no partners 

when it costs him money is someone who will 

say anything to get what he wants. And it's 

the type of person who, after taking all the 

money he admitted he took to [an accountant], 

would still have the gall to ask the IRS for 

a refund.

The defendant did not object to the prosecutor's use of 

the video clip on any of these three occasions. Nor did he object 

to any of the prosecutor's related statements. And although the

defendant made a passing mention of the video clip in his posttrial motion, that mention was only in connection with his 

contention that the charges against him should have been severed. 

Thus, the district court had no occasion to comment upon the 
- 75 -

prosecutor's use of the video clip when it denied the defendant's

alternative motion for judgment of acquittal or for a new trial.9

In this venue, the defendant contends that the 

prosecutor's use of the video clip during his closing and his 

associated comments amounted to prejudicial misconduct for two 

principal reasons. First, the defendant alleges that the 

prosecutor's actions constituted an improper propensity argument. 

See, e.g., United States v. Taylor, 284 F.3d 95, 102 (1st Cir. 

2002). Second, the defendant alleges that the video clip and the 

associated comments played too heavily to the jurors' emotions by 

inviting them to convict the defendant for pulling the wool over 

the eyes of Fall River voters. See, e.g., United States v. 

Manning, 23 F.3d 570, 574 (1st Cir. 1994) (explaining that 

"arguments urging a jury to act in any capacity other than as the 

9 Even so, the district court's views are not a secret. In 

passing upon a motion for continued release on bail, the district 

court canvassed the arguments made in the defendant's opening brief 

in this court. That brief apprised the district court — for the 

first time — of the defendant's contention that prosecutorial 

misconduct related to the use of the video clip during closing 

argument warranted a new trial. The court made pellucid that it 

did not consider "the government's use in closing argument of a 

videotape clip of [the defendant's] statements in a mayoral debate 

[]as sufficiently improper to justify a new trial." Correia, 2022 

WL 1004200, at *6. The court "did not then view the [prosecutor's] 

argument, graphically presented and underscored through the video 

clip, to be improper in whole or in part." Id. Rather, "it was 

fair argument . . . go[ing] to the core relevant issue in this 

case, that of scienter." Id.
- 76 -

impartial arbiter of the facts in the case before it are 

improper").

Plain error review is not appellant-friendly. We 

previously have outlined the steep uphill climb that is required 

for an appellant to prevail under plain error review. See supra

Part V (quoting Duarte, 246 F.3d at 60). As applied to closing 

arguments, we have given the plain error standard a practical 

twist. In that setting, "the plain error standard requires the 

court first to determine whether the challenged comment is 

obviously improper, that is, whether the first two prongs of the 

plain error standard have been satisfied." Walker-Couvertier, 860 

F.3d at 10. And if that is so, "the court must proceed to consider 

whether the comment 'so poisoned the well that the trial's outcome 

was likely affected.'" Id. (quoting United States v. Mejia-Lozano, 

829 F.2d 268, 274 (1st Cir. 1987)). In conducting this appraisal, 

we "must weigh factors such as the severity of the misconduct, the 

context in which it occurred, the presence or absence of curative 

instructions, and the strength of the evidence." Id.; see United 

States v. Kasenge, 660 F.3d 537, 542 (1st Cir. 2011).

The district court did not regard the deployment of the 

video clip and the associated comments as "improper in whole or in 

part." See supra note 9. But even if we assume, favorably to the 

defendant, that the alleged misconduct constituted clear or 

obvious error — a matter on which we take no view — it cannot
- 77 -

fairly be said that the alleged misconduct "so poisoned the well 

that the trial's outcome was likely affected." See Mejia-Lozano, 

829 F.2d at 274. We explain briefly. 

We start with some general observations. Our inquiry is 

case-specific, see Simon, 12 F.4th at 61, and the trappings of 

this case are sui generis. We recognize both that the prosecutor's 

statements were deliberate — the government frankly admits that it

used the video clip as a means of contrasting the defendant's 

statements with other evidence in the case — and that the 

deliberate nature of the statements is a factor favoring the 

defendant in the misconduct analysis. See United States v. 

Belanger, 890 F.3d 13, 34 (1st Cir. 2018).

Here, however, the alleged misconduct was not so severe 

as to require reversal. Indeed, the trial judge — who saw the 

three uses of the video clip and heard the associated comments in 

real time — found nothing amiss. See supra note 9.

To be sure, statements made in the heat of a political 

campaign cannot and should not always be taken literally. That 

does not mean, though, that the campaigner is entitled to a free 

pass. But the same is true for the prosecution. In that regard, 

we note our concern that the government's use of campaign videos 

in criminal prosecutions, especially on unrelated charges, may 

have a chilling effect on political speech — the very category of 

speech as to which the First Amendment affords the highest level 
- 78 -

of protection. See, e.g., Rideout v. Gardner, 838 F.3d 65, 75 

(1st Cir. 2016). We caution, then, that our opinion should not be 

read as a wholesale condonation of the tactic employed by the 

government in this case; and we will continue to evaluate 

allegations of prosecutorial misconduct that implicate free-speech 

concerns on a case-by-case basis.

Notwithstanding our generalized concern, we find no 

plain error here. The deployment of the video clip and the 

comments associated with it appear to have been little more than 

a rhetorical device, thrice repeated. And even though the

challenged comments may have suggested that the voters of Fall

River had been duped, nothing in the record suggests that invoking 

the plight of those voters would have clouded the jury's ability 

to weigh the evidence fairly.10

Nor was this a case in which the prosecutor introduced 

improper argument early in the trial and proceeded to weave that 

improper theme into the fabric of the case. See, e.g., United 

States v. Canty, 37 F.4th 775, 792 (1st Cir. 2022). The opposite 

is true: the prosecutor's use of the video clip played only a 

tiny part in a long and complex trial. The video clip itself was 

introduced into evidence without objection, and the challenged

10 We note that there is no indication in the record that any 

Fall River voter was seated on the jury that decided the 

defendant's case.
- 79 -

comments — which were limited to the wire- and tax-fraud counts —

take up only a few lines of a transcript that runs thousands of 

pages. 

We also find it significant that the defendant's trial 

counsel did not object to what the defendant now alleges was 

misconduct. Where, as here, a seasoned attorney does not object 

to remarks made during closing argument, this silence "suggest[s] 

that the remarks were not seen at the time" as poisoning the well. 

Belanger, 890 F.3d at 35; see Kasenge, 660 F.3d at 543.

The sockdolager, of course, is the strength of the 

government's evidence. We consistently have held that "the well 

is less likely to have been poisoned where strong evidence supports 

the prosecutor's case." Walker-Couvertier, 860 F.3d at 10 

(internal alteration omitted) (quoting Kasenge, 660 F.3d at 543). 

So it is here. Viewing the record as a whole, see Arrieta-Agressot

v. United States, 3 F.3d 525, 528 (1st Cir. 1993), the proof of 

the defendant's guilt on each and every count of conviction was 

solid. 

In this case, all roads lead to Rome. In view of the 

prosecutor's scattershot references in his summation to the video 

clip, the absence of any contemporaneous objection to those 

references, the government's independently powerful case against 
- 80 -

the defendant, and the instructions given by the district court,11

we conclude that the defendant has not shown a likelihood that the 

alleged misconduct prejudiced the jury and, thus, influenced the 

outcome of the case.

The defendant resists this conclusion. He marshals some 

case law in support of his resistance — but the defendant is 

comparing plums with pomegranates. Two examples suffice to 

illustrate this point.

In Canty — a case in which the defendants were convicted 

of conspiracy to possess and distribute drugs — "the prosecutor 

made four types of improper comments at different points during 

the opening statement, at closing, and at rebuttal." 37 F.4th at 

781. "Each built upon the others and introduced improper themes." 

Id. Notably, the prosecutor improperly appealed to the jury's 

emotions by casting the defendants "as cruel and greedy outsiders 

who came to [the state] to distribute illegal drugs to suffering 

[citizens]"; argued that the defendants were guilty by association 

with others who had already been convicted; vouched for the 

11 The district court carefully instructed the jury that its 

verdict must be based solely on the evidence. That instruction 

mitigated any improper residual impact that the prosecutor's 

statements may have had. See, e.g., United States v. Veloz, 948 

F.3d 418, 436 (1st Cir.) (holding that similar instructions 

significantly undercut any prejudice from improper statements), 

cert. denied, 141 S. Ct. 438 (2020); Walker-Couvertier, 860 F.3d 

at 11 (same); see also Mejia-Lozano, 829 F.2d at 274 (collecting 

cases).
- 81 -

credibility of witnesses; and mischaracterized video evidence, 

thus subverting the court's instruction that the evidence was 

admissible only against one of the defendants. See id. at 786-

90. Given these serial missteps, we held that the prosecutor's 

obviously improper statements were cumulatively severe and — even 

on plain error review — were so prejudicial as to warrant a new 

trial. See id. at 791.

Our decision in United States v. Carpenter, 494 F.3d 13 

(1st Cir. 2007), also serves to illustrate the incongruity of the 

authorities on which the defendant relies. There, the defendant 

was convicted of defrauding investors by misrepresenting his 

investment strategy. See id. at 16. During closing argument, the 

prosecutor made extensive use of a metaphor that likened the 

defendant to a "gambler" and his management of his clients' money 

to "gambling." See id. at 17, 23. The prosecutor "used some 

permutation of the word 'gamble'" eighteen times, including 

through "provocative references to 'cashing in chips,' 'doubling 

down' and 'river boat gambler.'" Id. at 23. We affirmed the grant 

of a new trial based on "the frequency with which the gambling 

references were made," their persistently pejorative nature, and 

our conclusion that they "were intended to, and did, inflame the 

jury's passions against the defendant." Id. at 22-24.

The case at hand is cut from markedly different cloth. 

Viewed in light of the record as a whole, the alleged misconduct
- 82 -

simply does not support the defendant's claim that the prosecutor's 

deployment of the video clip during closing argument and the 

associated comments likely skewed the outcome of the trial. 

Because the well was not poisoned here, it necessarily follows 

that plain error lies beyond the defendant's reach. 

VII

We need go no further. The record reveals that the 

defendant was fairly tried and lawfully convicted by an impartial 

jury in a trial presided over by an able judge and unblemished by 

any reversible error. For the reasons elucidated above, the 

judgment of the district court is

Affirmed.