Justia White Collar Crime Opinion Summaries

Jason Dvorin appealed his conviction of conspiracy to commit bank fraud. Dvorin's appeal has been consolidated with the appeal of Mindy Sauter, the attorney who prosecuted defendant during his first trial. Dvorin asserted that the district court erred in: (1) denying his request for an apparent-authority jury instruction; (2) denying his request for a special unanimity jury instruction; (3) overruling his objections under Federal Rules of Evidence 701 and 704 to the government counsels’ and witnesses’ use of the terms “fraud,” “fraudulent check,” or “conspiracy”; (4) excluding extrinsic evidence of and cross-examination regarding the district court’s findings that Chris Derrington, Pavillion Bank's executive vice president, testified falsely in a prior proceeding; (5) declining to award sanctions for prosecutorial discovery misconduct; (6) admitting the testimony of Chase Bank representative Arthemis Lindsay despite the government’s failure to timely designate Lindsay as a possible witness on its witness list; and (7) permitting the government to add a forfeiture count to the second superseding indictment before the second trial and entering a forfeiture judgment at sentencing without having a jury find the facts essential to that judgment. Sauter contends that the district court erroneously found that she violated Brady, Giglio, and Napue and acted “recklessly” by failing to timely disclose Derrington’s plea agreement supplement. The court reversed the district court’s denial of Dvorin’s motion to dismiss the forfeiture account for prosecutorial vindictiveness because the presumption of vindictiveness applied in this case where the government added a forfeiture notice in the second superseding indictment, and the government failed to overcome this presumption. The court affirmed in all other respects. View "United States v. Dvorin" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to an offense related to a scheme to defraud the DOE and the district court ordered each defendant involved in the scheme to pay restitution. On appeal, defendant challenged the district court's denial of the Government's proposed application of restitution payments to a codefendant (Otto). The court concluded that a more appropriate mechanism for the court to apply is a hybrid approach to restitution payments where multiple defendants are held liable for injuries caused by a common scheme. In this case, the district court’s concern - that requiring payment from Otto would render both Otto and another codefendant (Reed) responsible for restitution in excess of the loss attributable to their conduct - is misplaced. Payments requested by the defendants encompass overlapping injuries due to each defendant's conduct. The court concluded that any funds received by the defendants should be applied to the total sum owed by all defendants. In doing so, payments from Otto would also reduce the overall sum owed by defendant. Further, the district court's analysis similarly does not align with the Mandatory Victim's Restitution Act's (MVRA), 18 U.S.C. 3663A, rules regarding liability apportionment. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded. View "United States v. Sheets" on Justia Law