Criminal Law

Record contained sufficient evidence to support jury’s guilty verdict on seven counts of presenting false claims under 18 USC section 287 arising out of defendant’s submission of multiple income tax returns for 2006, 2007 and 2008. While defendant argued that record failed to contain any evidence that he willfully presented false claims in said tax returns, govt. need not prove willfulness under section 237, but only that defendant knew said claims to be false. As such, govt. made requisite showing where: (1) defendant listed in each return $900,000 in income without identifying how said income was obtained, as well as contended that $300,000 of said income was withheld, without providing any proof of such withholding; and (2) defendant’s submission of patently false and utterly groundless claims in his returns was sufficient to establish his knowledge of falsity of said claims.

Dist. Ct. did not err in granting defendant’s habeas petition challenging his murder conviction on ground that trial court improperly admitted letter of victim (defendant’s wife) that was written two weeks prior to her death indicating that she would never take her life, and that defendant should be considered suspect if anything should happen to her. Such admission was error under Giles, 554 US 353, because it violated defendant’s right to confrontation, and said admission did not qualify for any “forfeiture by wrongdoing” exception to Confrontation Clause. Moreover, although Wisconsin appellate court properly found that said admission was error, it improperly found that any error was harmless, since said admission had substantial and injurious influence on jury’s verdict where said admission was important piece of state’s case against defendant, and where record contained evidence supporting defendant’s claim that his wife had committed suicide. Fact that record contained sufficient evidence to convict defendant on murder charge did not require different result. (Dissent filed.)

In prosecution on charges of conspiracy to file false income tax returns and filing false claims based upon scheme alleging existence of sovereign citizen theory arising out of belief that govt. held hidden bank counts that were accessible by its citizens, Dist. Ct. did not err in declining to sua sponte hold competency hearing for one defendant who represented herself at trial. Defendant had no history of mental illness, and although govt. described some of her statements in her pre-trial motions as “nonsensical” and standby counsel referred to defendant’s behavior as “delusional,” Dist. Ct. did not have reasonable cause to believe that defendant suffered from mental disease that prevented her from understanding nature of proceedings against her, where: (1) all purported evidence of mental illness stemmed from defendant’s decision to pursue discredited legal defense; and (2) defendant’s adherence to discredited legal theory does not create reasonable cause to believe she suffered from mental defect. Moreover, Dist. Ct. could rely on defendant’s and her standby counsel’s statements affirming defendant’s ability to understand charges against her, as well as defendant’s performance at trial in which she advanced nuanced legal arguments to negate element of charged offense.

Record contained sufficient evidence to support jury’s guilty verdict on fraud and wire fraud charges arising out of scheme in which defendant assisted vendors to obtain payments for County work and received kickbacks from said vendors after defendant approved vendor’s proposals for work in his role as purchasing agent for County. Record was sufficient to establish wire fraud charge where defendant: (1) altered vendors' proposals and wrote invoices to fit below $25,000 threshold in effort to avoid detection by County Bd. of Commissioners; and (2) assisted said vendors to receive payments prior to completion of any work and despite vendors never delivering services commensurate with County’s payments to them. Moreover, record showed that defendant received kickbacks from said vendors under guise that defendant was “subcontractor” in effort by vendors to secure future awards from County. Moreover, while prosecutor misstated facts during closing arguments regarding whether other vendors were ever prepaid for contractual work for County, any misstatement was harmless given strength of case against defendant.

Defendants were entitled to new sentencing hearing for reconsideration of Dist. Ct.’s imposition of several discretionary supervised release conditions. Dist. Ct. had failed to make specific finding that said conditions were supported by section 3553(a) factors, and such procedural error constituted reversible error.

Dist. Ct. did not err in sentencing defendant to 211-month term of incarceration on charges of use of facility in interstate commerce with intent to commit murder and possession of firearm in furtherance of crime of violence. Instant sentence was within sentencing guidelines, and thus was presumptively reasonable. Moreover, defendant was not entitled to three-level reduction in offense level under section 2X1.1 of USSG, since plaintiff’s solicitation offense was specifically covered by section 2A1.5 of USSG that involved murder solicitations. Fact that proposed murder was never carried out does not require different result. Dist. Ct. also adequately considered defendant’s mitigation argument that solicitation charge arose out of defendant’s emotional trauma stemming from his recent divorce.