U.S. v. Friedman

In prosecution on bank fraud charges arising out of scheme in which defendant secured loans for fake buyers of phony inventory of cars that defendant's dealership did not have, Dist. Ct. did not err in denying defendant's motion to either dismiss indictment or bar testimony of co-defendant, who also worked at car dealership and had pleaded guilty to certain bank fraud charges arising out of same scheme. While defendant based said motion on fact that he shared privileged information with counsel for co-defendant at time when counsel had represented both defendant and co-defendant, record showed that co-defendant's counsel never breached any attorney-client privilege, and co-defendant's counsel never elicited, and defendant never testified that he shared any confidences with co-defendant's counsel about alleged bank fraud. Moreover, Dist. Ct. could properly find that defendant's claim that he relayed privileged information to co-defendant's counsel during co-defendant's bathroom breaks was not credible. Record also contained sufficient evidence to support jury's guilty verdict, where: (1) co-defendant corroborated defendant's role in scheme; (2) purported borrowers testified they did not apply for fraudulent losses; and (3) several witnesses testified that defendant confessed to said fraud. Also, Dist. Ct. could properly impose $4,722,347 restitution order that included $2.5 million in losses suffered by floor-plan investors, where said losses were occurred in attempt by defendant to conceal bank fraud.