United States v. Bourget

United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit No. 23-1582 UNITED STATES, Appellee, v. SETH M. BOURGET, Defendant, Appellant. APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS [Hon. Denise J. Casper, U.S. District Judge] Before Montecalvo, Lynch, and Kayatta, Circuit Judges. Benjamin Brooks, with whom Good Schneider Cormier Fried & Brooks was on brief, for appellant. Karen Eisenstadt, Assistant U.S. Attorney, with whom Joshua S. Levy, U.S. Attorney, was on brief, for appellee. August 21, 2026  MONTECALVO, Circuit Judge. Correctional Officer Seth Bourget challenges his criminal conviction for deprivation of rights under color of law in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 242, arguing that the evidence admitted at trial was insufficient to support a finding of guilt and raising several other issues for our review. This appeal stems from an incident occurring on June 18, 2019, when correctional officers with the Bureau of Prisons ("BOP") at the Federal Medical Center Devens ("FMC Devens") performed what officers term a "forced cell move," where they use force to enter a cell, secure the individual inside, and then move that individual to another location. On that day, Bourget was part of the five-person use-of-force team that executed a forced cell move on KT,1 an inmate who was in a holding cell with his hands handcuffed behind his back. Bourget, equipped with a large shield, was the first officer to enter the holding cell. Bourget entered at full speed and struck KT with the shield in the chin and face. As a result, KT fell back, hit his head, and suffered serious injuries to his head and face. The incident was captured on video, which was played at trial. Bourget initially faced two criminal charges of deprivation of rights under federal law related to this incident. He proceeded to a jury trial in federal court that resulted in an 1 Consistent with the record and the parties' briefing, we refer to this individual by his initials. - 2 - acquittal on one count; however, the jury was hung as to the other count. Bourget was then retried on the remaining count, which alleged that Bourget violated KT's Eighth Amendment rights by striking KT with the shield with excessive force while KT was handcuffed inside the holding cell. The second jury trial resulted in a conviction; Bourget now challenges that conviction on appeal. For reasons we will explain below, Bourget's challenges fail, and we affirm the conviction. I. Background "We review the facts in the light most favorable to the jury's guilty verdict." United States v. Lee, 790 F.3d 12, 13 (1st Cir. 2015). Here, we focus on the facts and procedural history relevant to the legal issues raised, including video evidence in the appellate record. See United States v. Howard, 66 F.4th 33, 37 n.1 (1st Cir. 2023); see also Bannon v. Godin, 99 F.4th 63, 69-70, 81 (1st Cir. 2024) (relying on footage from traffic cameras and officer body-worn cameras). A. The Incident In December 2018, KT was incarcerated at FMC Devens, where he was also provided mental health treatment. During his time at FMC Devens, KT experienced delusions and auditory hallucinations; in addition to being diagnosed with "unspecified psychotic disorder," he was also diagnosed with "neurodevelopmental disorder" and "autistic spectrum disorder." - 3 - The staff psychologist likened KT's mental capacity to the "range between a child and a teenager," and described KT as "the most mentally ill person" he had ever seen. KT's physical health was also deteriorating; he lost approximately 70 pounds in the preceding year and a half, now weighed around "160, 150-something" pounds, and did not have much muscle definition. Although KT had not been physically assaultive towards staff, he did, at one point, spit on the staff psychologist, which is considered a staff assault. As a result of this incident, KT's picture was included in FMC Devens's "electronic posted picture file," a list alerting officers to be aware of certain individuals. On June 18, 2019, an altercation occurred between KT and a nurse in the N-3 housing unit, a semi-locked unit that KT had been moved to that day. The nurse activated his body alarm and sprayed KT with oleoresin capsicum ("OC") spray, also known as pepper spray. Officers, including Bourget, arrived to assist the nurse and restrained KT, securing KT's hands behind his back with handcuffs and moving him from the N-3 unit to a holding cell in the N-1 unit. Bourget began operating a handheld camcorder during the move from N-3 to N-1. Unlike the N-3 unit, where incarcerated individuals have the opportunity to walk around the unit and interact with each other, the N-1 unit is a locked mental health unit. The N-1 unit is considered the highest level of security at FMC Devens. - 4 -  The officers locked KT in a holding cell in the N-1 unit, with his hands still handcuffed behind his back. The officers continuously monitored KT, and he was speaking incoherently to them. While in the N-1 holding cell, KT tried to spit on staff who were outside the cell, including Bourget. KT's spit hit Bourget in the face area and forearm; the spit appeared to be mixed with blood. Bourget became concerned about contracting a disease from the bloody spit and was "upset" and "scared." On the video, Bourget can be heard saying "f***" in response to the spitting and then "f***" again as he walked away. Another officer took control of the camcorder during this time; at some point, he placed it on a trashcan outside of the holding cell. A different officer told KT, "spit again and I'll fill your face full of spray, alright?" The officers told KT that they needed his cooperation to clean off the OC spray. If he did not cooperate, they would have to use more OC spray. KT continued to spit at officers, and an officer sprayed KT with OC spray in response. This did not stop KT from attempting to spit on officers. After KT continued to spit, an officer is recorded saying to someone, "You going to get the f****** shield anytime soon here, or what?" At one point, Bourget returned to the area and said that he also wanted to spray KT with OC spray. Lieutenant Joseph Lavorato was the supervising - 5 - officer, and, at this point, he indicated to the officers not to spray KT further. KT was then left walking in circles in the holding cell, still speaking incoherently and handcuffed behind his back. Meanwhile, a use-of-force team was assembled to decontaminate KT and move him from the holding cell. Bourget was identified as "the number one man" on the use-of-force team, meaning he was the first in line to enter the holding cell and "responsible for securing [KT's] head and torso." One officer testified at trial that Bourget volunteered for this position. Almost an hour after KT was initially placed in the holding cell, the use-of-force team headed to the area outside of the cell. Bourget, who got there first, said "f*** you" to KT. The rest of the use-of-force team joined Bourget shortly thereafter, and they waited directly outside of the holding cell. Lieutenant Lavorato asked KT multiple times to turn around and lay down on the ground so that they could "get [him] cleaned up." One unidentified officer on the team stated, "you're going to get one . . . oh, you're going to get one." KT did not lie on the ground but instead stood near the opening of the holding cell and responded incoherently, such as by spelling his last name out loud. The holding cell was then unlocked, and the use-of-force team entered at full speed, with Bourget, holding a shield, at the front of the group. Bourget entered first and hit KT with the top - 6 - of the shield, using an upward motion that caused the shield to hit KT's chin and face. As a result, KT fell back and hit his head on the wall and/or floor. Once on the ground, KT cried out in pain and again spoke incoherently. Blood was smeared on the wall and pooled on the ground where KT had been tackled. The officers eventually washed the OC spray off KT and brought him to a different cell in the N-1 unit. Later that night, KT was sent to the hospital. There was a 2.5-centimeter laceration on the lower left side of his face and a 3-centimeter laceration on the back of his scalp. Doctors used twelve staples to close the wound on the back of KT's head. After KT returned to FMC Devens, several medical staff noted his injuries. The day after the incident, a physician assistant at FMC Devens observed that KT had "[a] lot of bruising and swelling over different parts of [his] face," and, a couple days later, the staff psychologist observed that KT still had notable swelling and bruising to his face. When a forced cell move like this is completed, FMC Devens staff review the use of force to ensure proper procedure was followed. This led to an investigation into the incident, and, eventually, criminal charges were brought against Bourget and Lavorato. - 7 -  B. The Indictment On February 5, 2020, a grand jury charged Bourget and Lieutenant Lavorato under a four-count indictment. As relevant to this appeal, the indictment charged Bourget with two counts of deprivation of rights under color of law in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 242 for: (1) allegedly dropping his knee on KT's head while KT was handcuffed and restrained on the ground after the initial altercation with the nurse in N-3 and (2) striking KT with a protective shield with excessive force while KT was handcuffed inside the holding cell. The remaining counts were charged against Lavorato. C. The First Trial The initial trial in spring 2022 lasted thirteen days. Bourget and Lavorato were tried together and both testified in their defense. Employees who worked at FMC Devens at the time of the incident, including fourteen officers and five medical professionals, also testified. Two other federal law enforcement officers and two expert witnesses also testified. Several videos of the incident -- beginning with the altercation in N-3 and continuing through the forced cell move in N-1 -- were introduced into evidence. Two stationary surveillance cameras recorded the incident without sound (one in N-3 where the altercation with the nurse occurred and one in N-1 where the remainder of the incident occurred). Two hand-held video - 8 - recorders, or camcorders, also recorded the incident with audio. One of those camcorders was the one Bourget initially manned in N-1 and that was later inadvertently left on a trashcan facing the holding cell. The other camcorder was used during the forced cell move and was operated by then-Lieutenant Benjamin Quinn, who was "the number six man" on the use-of-force team -- the sixth to enter the holding cell, whose only duty was to man the camera. Relevant to this appeal, in the first trial, Captain Michael Bollinger testified about a use-of-force training class he taught at FMC Devens. He explained that the general BOP policy is "to use the minimum amount of force necessary to resolve [a] situation." Bollinger also explained why and how an officer may escalate force depending on the circumstances. In doing so, Bollinger noted that during forced cell moves, officers may use a shield but that "[i]t should be used as a protection, never as a weapon." During Bollinger's testimony, defense counsel asked about a video shown at training at FMC Devens portraying a prior forced cell move of an incarcerated person named Sion (the "Sion video").2 Bollinger testified that the Sion video was used as an example to explain to officers how to transition from lesser to greater uses of force "for a disruptive inmate, such as going from 2 Because this video is the focus of one of the main issues on appeal, we describe it in detail. - 9 - OC spray to the pepper ball launcher to the stun gun to, in [Sion's] case . . . an OC grenade which basically explodes in the cell and puts OC projectant [sic] out in the air and also strikes the inmate with rubber balls to create a deflection so that the team can go in on him." Bollinger specifically testified that the video was not used in training as "an illustration of how a forced cell move should be done." He instead explained, "I showed that video because we were getting into that use of transitioning [between different] less than lethal [means of force], and I thought the lieutenant did an excellent job dictating on video how he was transitioning from one less lethal [means] to the next." The Sion video then came into evidence without objection from the government.3 The Sion video shows Sion refusing to voluntarily submit to being restrained in handcuffs and moved to a different unit. Sion had a history of refusing orders, refusing programs, and assaulting staff. A use-of-force team was compiled to move Sion between units; Bourget was the "number one man" on that use-of-force team just as he was in the incident at issue. As seen in the video, when the use-of-force team approached Sion's cell, Sion was not handcuffed, and he was lying 3 Although the government objected to a portion of the video based on relevance, it did not otherwise take a position on the remainder of the video. - 10 - in bed; he soon got up once the officers approached. The officers repeatedly asked Sion if he was willing to be moved and asked him to come to the door to "cuff up," but he did not respond. The officers then used a short burst of OC spray when Sion did not respond to the "last direct order." Sion still refused to respond to orders, and so the officers used another short burst of OC spray. At this point, Sion walked away from the door of his cell, and the officers transitioned to the use of pepper bombs. Sion continued to refuse orders, and an additional round of pepper bombs were deployed. The officers then gave Sion additional time to comply with their orders. But Sion instead went over to the sink in his cell and attempted to clean the OC spray from his face. The officers warned Sion that they were going to deploy stun munition because he was not complying with their order to come to the door. The officers then used a stun grenade, after which the use-of-force team entered the cell to restrain Sion. The officers quickly entered the room (without a shield) and brought Sion to the ground. Once restrained, the officers were able to move Sion out of his cell and take him to be decontaminated. After the video was shown to the jury, Bollinger noted that the main difference between the threat Sion posed in the video and the threat KT posed in the situation here was that KT was restrained with his hands handcuffed behind his back, whereas Sion - 11 - was not restrained in any way. Bollinger also again confirmed that the Sion video was used in training "to show how we would transition through [different tiers of] less than lethal" force. The Sion video was later briefly mentioned by defense counsel at closing arguments and only to note that a shield was not used during that forced cell move. After the close of evidence, the case went to the jury, which found Bourget not guilty on the count involving the alleged knee drop and found Lavorato not guilty on both counts against him. The jury could not reach a verdict as to the remaining count against Bourget related to striking KT with the shield, and so the district court declared a mistrial on that count. The government sought a retrial. D. The Second Trial The second jury trial was held in December 2022. This time, the trial lasted only seven days and included far fewer witnesses. Eight officers and four medical professionals who worked at FMC Devens at the time of the incident testified. Additionally, one other federal officer and two expert witnesses testified. Bourget did not testify in his defense. The videos of the incident that were introduced at the first trial were also introduced at the second trial. At the second trial, Bourget again requested to introduce the Sion video into evidence. In support of admission, - 12 - Bourget contended that the Sion video was "used each year in the annual training" to show "a proper forced cell move." But, unlike in the first trial, the government objected to the introduction of the Sion video, arguing that the video was inadmissible and being used to show Bourget's prior good acts. The government emphasized that the testimony from the first trial established that the Sion video is used in training only to show how to transition between different types of uses of force but "had nothing to do with" a forced cell move. After initially reserving on the question of the admission of the Sion video in order to first reexamine the video and the prior testimony, the district court did not allow the video into evidence. The court gave two reasons for excluding the Sion video: first, it found the video irrelevant because the circumstances in the video were "very different" than the circumstances in this case; and, second, "to the extent it ha[d] any relevance . . . the probative value [wa]s substantially outweighed by any . . . danger of confusion or unfair prejudice." In reaching those conclusions, the court reasoned that the video "involved not only a different inmate, [but] an inmate who was not restrained, and it involved OC spray and then an escalation to a pepper spray bomb, an OC bomb." Because those circumstances were so different from the case here, the court determined that the video "would [not] be helpful to the jury in - 13 - deciding the critical issues and the contested issues they have to decide here." The district court also focused on the Sion video being "used in training for another purpose," namely a portrayal of how to transition between different levels of force, rather than to show how to complete a forced cell move. In support of its understanding of the purpose of using the Sion video in training, the district court pointed to Captain Bollinger's testimony that he "showed [the Sion] video because [they] were getting into . . . transitioning . . . from one [use of force] to the next" and not to show how to complete a forced cell move. The district court also found that the same analysis supported holding that even if the video had some relevance, it was substantially outweighed by the "danger of confusion or unfair prejudice." In response, Bourget argued, again, that the Sion video is used for training and the video would be introduced to show "this is all the officers get, one to two hours in refresher training in a classroom, and then they show a video." The district court noted that it had taken this argument into consideration and that, even without the admission of the video, Bourget could make an argument regarding his training. However, the court again highlighted that "even the person in charge of training, namely, Bollinger, notes the video is used in training for another purpose." Thus, the court reiterated that "to the extent that [the Sion video] is used in the training, it's not relevant to the - 14 - decision this jury has to make in regards to excessive use of force." A great deal of the trial testimony in the second trial focused on how officers are trained to perform forced cell moves. Captain Bollinger testified -- as he did in the first trial -- and much of his testimony centered on how he trained officers on use of force at FMC Devens. Bollinger said that "[s]taff are trained to use the minimum amount of force necessary to control a situation." He also stated that, typically, a forced cell move would be performed on an unrestrained individual, and officers were trained "to get into the cell as quickly as possible and restrain that inmate." Bollinger gave the example of a 70-year-old inmate who is sitting on his bed but not presenting his hands to be handcuffed. He said, in that situation, he would tell officers "run in as quickly as you can, and grab ahold of his arms" but not to go in "and smash the guy." Bollinger also testified that a shield is "a defensive piece of equipment [that is] not ever trained to be used offensively in a forced cell move." And he testified that he had never instructed any officers to move a shield "in an upward fashion" because that "could cause extreme injury to the head or neck area," including "serious injury . . . and/or death." When discussing the incident with KT, Bollinger testified that Bourget's entry into the cell was not consistent with the training and instruction that he gave on the use of force - 15 - because Bourget used the shield offensively, bringing the top of the shield "up very quickly" into KT's "neck area" and "throwing [KT's] head back." Other officers also testified about the training received at FMC Devens. The federal officer who led the investigation into the incident believed that officers are "told to be dynamic, go quickly" but that entering "at full speed, 100 percent" was not necessarily the language used. A former FMC Devens officer noted that "[e]very cell entry is different" so officers do not always enter at "full speed" and are trained to use "the minimum amount of force needed." But other officers testified that they "always enter [cells] at 100 percent" and that they enter "[a]s fast as [they] can get in there" when completing a forced cell move. Captain Benjamin Quinn4 testified regarding the reactions of the other officers when they saw the video of the forced cell move recorded by the camcorder that was left on the trashcan. Shortly after the incident occurred, Quinn watched the video with Officers Corey, Kennedy, and Brown in the officer station. Quinn testified that Officer Corey had already watched the video and commented that "it was bad." Quinn took this to mean that the video "wasn't going to be [] good" and that the entry 4 Quinn was a lieutenant at the time of the incident but was promoted to captain by the time of the second trial. - 16 - into the holding cell "probably was not a policy move." After Quinn viewed the video, he agreed "that it was bad . . . [s]pecifically the way that the shield was used." After deliberating, the jury returned a guilty verdict. Bourget had moved for a judgment of acquittal at the close of the government's case and at the close of evidence, he did so again after the verdict was rendered; the district court denied the motions. The district court subsequently sentenced Bourget to a year and a day in prison, followed by two years of supervised release. Bourget now appeals his conviction. II. Discussion Bourget challenges his conviction on several grounds. First, he argues the evidence was insufficient to support a finding that his use of force against KT was malicious and sadistic or that he acted with specific intent to deprive KT of his constitutional rights. Second, he argues that the jury instructions failed to explain the requisite standard the jury had to apply in finding intent. Third, he argues that his right to present a complete defense was violated by the district court's exclusion of the Sion video in his second trial. Fourth, he argues that he was prejudiced by hearsay and opinion testimony admitted at his second trial. And finally, Bourget argues that these cumulative errors, along with others, prejudiced him and deprived him of a fair trial. - 17 -  A. Sufficiency of the Evidence We review de novo the sufficiency of the evidence, "scrutinizing the record as a whole, drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of the verdict, and avoiding any credibility judgments, to determine whether any rational factfinder could have found each element of the crime proved beyond a reasonable doubt." United States v. DeCologero, 530 F.3d 36, 65 (1st Cir. 2008). "To uphold a conviction, the court need not believe that no verdict other than a guilty verdict could sensibly be reached, but must only satisfy itself that the guilty verdict finds support in a plausible rendition of the record." Id. (quoting United States v. Echeverri, 982 F.2d 675, 677 (1st Cir. 1993)). Bourget was convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 242, a charge of deprivation of rights under color of law. As relevant here, that statute criminalizes the behavior of any person (1) acting under color of law who (2) willfully (3) deprives another person "of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States" (4) causing "bodily injury" as a result from these actions. 18 U.S.C. § 242; see United States v. Bailey, 405 F.3d 102, 111 (1st Cir. 2005). Bourget was convicted under this statute for willfully violating KT's Eighth Amendment rights under the U.S. Constitution. Bourget - 18 - argues that the evidence at trial was insufficient to satisfy both the deprivation and willfulness elements under the statute.5 1. Deprivation of Eighth Amendment Rights Under the deprivation of rights element, we are focused on the violation of KT's Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment. "A prison official violates the Eighth Amendment only when two requirements are met": an objective and subjective requirement. Cintron v. Bibeault, 148 F.4th 37, 47 (1st Cir. 2025) (cleaned up) (quoting Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994)). The objective requirement provides that "the deprivation alleged must be, objectively, sufficiently serious." Id. (quoting Farmer, 511 U.S. at 834). The subjective requirement provides that "a prison official must have a sufficiently culpable state of mind." Id. (quoting Farmer, 511 U.S. at 834). Because Bourget focuses his appeal only on the subjective requirement, that is where we focus our analysis.6 Under the subjective requirement, when faced with a prison disturbance, the question of whether the defendant's action caused "unnecessary and wanton pain and suffering," such that the 5 As the parties do in their briefing, we begin with the deprivation element. This approach makes sense because, as is evident in our discussion, the Eighth Amendment analysis of the deprivation element also involves the defendant's state of mind. 6 Because Bourget does not raise any argument as to the objective requirement, any potential argument is waived. See Toloza-Jiménez v. Gonzáles, 457 F.3d 155, 160 (1st Cir. 2006). - 19 - defendant had the requisite culpable state of mind, "turns on whether force was applied in a good faith effort to maintain or restore discipline or maliciously and sadistically for the very purpose of causing harm." Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 6 (1992) (quoting Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312, 320-21 (1986)). In answering this question, we address the following factors laid out by the Supreme Court, known as the "Whitley factors": (1) the extent of the threat to the safety of staff and inmates, as reasonably perceived by the responsible officials, (2) the need for the application of force, (3) the relationship between the need and the amount of force that was used, (4) the extent of the injury inflicted, and (5) any efforts made to temper the severity of a forceful response. Segrain v. Duffy, 118 F.4th 45, 56-57 (1st Cir. 2024) (cleaned up) (quoting Staples v. Gerry, 923 F.3d 7, 13 (1st Cir. 2019)). Because direct evidence of motive or intent is often lacking, the Whitley factors may be used to "infer the existence of the subjective state of mind required for an Eighth Amendment violation." Id. at 61-62 (cleaned up) (quoting Dean v. Jones, 984 F.3d 295, 302 (4th Cir. 2021)). Bourget does not directly apply the Whitley factors in his briefing; instead, he argues that the evidence before the jury supports only that he acted with deliberate indifference and not with malicious and sadistic intent. In so doing, he contends that KT spitting on him before Bourget entered the cell and Bourget's - 20 - own language during the encounter (saying things like "f*** you") are not enough to show he acted maliciously and sadistically. He also emphasizes that he used a shield only at his lieutenant's instruction and entered the cell at "100%" because that was how he was trained. He does not address what the jury could have inferred from the Whitley factors. Applying the Whitley factors, we think a plausible rendition of the record, when viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, supports the jury's conclusion that Bourget acted with malicious and sadistic intent. Under the first factor, a jury could have found that the threat to the safety of staff and inmates was low when the officers rushed KT and Bourget struck him with a shield, where KT was standing still and handcuffed behind his back, had been sprayed with OC spray several times, and had "[d]eteriorating" physical health, such that he had lost weight, had "no muscular definition," and was described as "emaciated." Officers also testified that KT did not make any threatening statements or aggressive movements at the time of the forced cell move. The use-of-force team was composed of five officers wearing protective gear, all entering the cell together to restrain KT (with a sixth officer following to record the incident on camera). Bourget, who was present before the incident and led the team into the cell, was aware of these facts before entering the cell and utilizing force and could and - 21 - should have perceived the threat presented to be low. See Segrain, 118 F.4th at 62 (finding, at the summary judgment stage, that a reasonable jury could find that the responsible official should have perceived the threat as low where the incarcerated individual was handcuffed and surrounded by six officers, even though he held a prison-issued razor). We turn next to the second Whitley factor -- the need for the application of force -- and the third factor -- the relationship between that need for force and the amount of force used. Although the record indisputably supports a finding that some use of force was necessary to decontaminate KT so that he did not suffer further harm, the jury reasonably could have concluded that the amount of force utilized here was disproportionately high in relation to that need. The jury had the videos of the incident before it -- as do we -- and could view the significant amount of force used by Bourget when he speared KT with the shield. The jury also heard evidence establishing how shields are meant to be used defensively in this context and how that differed from Bourget's offensive use here, causing KT further harm, and heard testimony about the risk of serious injury or death posed by the type of spearing, upward motion Bourget used. Though the jury heard competing evidence as to how the officers were trained to enter the cell and utilize force (with some officers testifying they always enter a cell at 100 percent during forced cell moves - 22 - and others testifying that the entry is fact-dependent but they always use the minimum amount of force necessary), the jury was able to consider and weigh that evidence in making its decision. As to the fourth Whitley factor, the extent of the injuries, the jury also heard evidence that, with his hands cuffed behind his back, KT suffered significant injuries as a result of being hit with the shield and forced backwards. When forced back, KT hit his head on the wall and/or floor of the holding cell. The jury saw videos of the incident, which showed blood smeared on the wall and pooled on the floor of the holding cell. KT was treated at a hospital later that night, and the procedure notes from that visit identified a 2.5-centimeter laceration on the lower left side of his face and a 3-centimeter laceration on the back of his scalp. Twelve staples were needed to close the wound on the back of KT's head. One lieutenant saw KT the day after the incident and testified that the injuries he observed on KT "weren't normal" compared to injuries he had previously seen on inmates after a calculated use of force, which were typically less severe. The physician assistant who saw KT the morning after the incident testified that KT had "[a] lot of bruising and swelling over different parts of the face with the wound -- the stitches in the left lower cheek." The jury also heard evidence that a couple of days after the incident, the staff psychologist at FMC Devens noted that KT still had "[a] lot of swelling and bruising around his - 23 - face." The jury reasonably could have concluded that KT's injuries were significant.7 On balance, viewing the record in the light most favorable to the verdict, the Whitley factors weighed in favor of inferring that Bourget acted with malicious and sadistic intent. Further, despite Bourget's arguments to the contrary, the jury was also presented with direct evidence of Bourget's specific intent, including his use of language (saying "f***" and "f*** you") and expressed desire to spray KT with OC spray. For these reasons, a plausible rendition of the record supports the jury's finding that Bourget acted with malicious and sadistic intent and (because Bourget does not challenge the conclusion that the objective requirement was met) accordingly deprived KT of his Eighth Amendment rights. 2. Willfulness We next turn to the willfulness element. When the word willful is "used in a criminal statute, it generally means an act done with a bad purpose." Screws v. United States, 325 U.S. 91, 7 Although we need not go through a recitation of each factor, we note that as to the fifth Whitley factor -- whether efforts were made to temper the severity of the response -- it is difficult to say how it weighs here. After the use-of-force team entered the cell, following Bourget's strike with the shield, the team promptly decontaminated KT from the lingering OC spray. Despite the officers' attention to decontaminating KT, they did not appear to focus on KT's other injuries, and medical staff soon took over. Thus, this factor tends to weigh neutrally as to Bourget's efforts to temper the severity of the use of force. - 24 - 101 (1945) (quoting United States v. Murdock, 290 U.S. 389, 394 (1933)). Section 242 is not "a trap for law enforcement agencies acting in good faith" but, instead, applies to officials who "either know[] or act[] in reckless disregard of [the statute's] prohibition of the deprivation of a defined constitutional or other federal right." Id. at 104. A defendant's bad purpose does not need to be expressed; it can instead be "reasonably inferred" from the circumstances. Id. at 106. "The requisite intent could be established by 'all the attendant circumstances -- the malice of the defendant, the weapons used in the assault, its character and duration, the provocation, if any, and the like.'" United States v. Marler, 756 F.2d 206, 217 (1st Cir. 1985) (cleaned up) (quoting Screws, 325 U.S. at 107). Bourget argues that the jury could not infer that he had the requisite specific intent because he did not engage in a pattern of abusing KT, he had been trained to enter the cell at "100%," and he had not received instruction on how to use the shield. But, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, we see the evidence differently. Bourget does not recognize that the jury heard competing evidence as to how officers were trained and how much force should have been used in this circumstance under that training. Although there was evidence that supported Bourget's theory that officers were taught to enter a cell at 100 percent, several witnesses - 25 - instead testified that officers were to enter the cell quickly and then use the minimum amount of force necessary. See United States v. Hill, 99 F.4th 1289, 1307 (11th Cir. 2024) (reasoning that "where the officer's actions so obviously violate his training on the use of force, a jury may infer that the violation was willful" (cleaned up) (quoting United Stat