Criminal Law

In prosecution on tax fraud charges stemming from defendant’s failure to report as income his receipt of money from various campaign funds, Dist. Ct. did not err in excluding evidence that defendant had amended his tax returns and made payments to reimburse his campaign committees that occurred after federal agents approached defendant during their investigation of his activities. While defendant argued that said evidence was probative of his good faith and lack of intent to file fraudulent tax returns, Dist. Ct. could properly condition said admission on defendant’s ability to show that said actions had connection to his state of mind at time he filed his incorrect returns, which defendant did not do since he failed to testify and otherwise presented defense that said transfers were loans and not income. Moreover, Dist. Ct. did not impermissively infringe on defendant’s 5th Amendment rights by forcing him to either testify or forego opportunity to present instant state of mind evidence since defendant does not have unfettered right to present testimony that is not admissible under standard rules of evidence.

Dist. Ct. did not err in entering order that approved plan to involuntarily administer antipsychotic drugs to defendant for purpose of restoring defendant to competency for upcoming sentencing hearing. Dist. Ct. made adequate findings as to all four factors recognized for approval of such orders under Sell, 539 US 166, where two medical experts testified that although there was certain potential side effects caused by said drugs, there was 93% success rate of restoration of competency for persons having defendant’s diagnosis. Fact that defense counsel made observation that defendant appeared to be improving in his ability to understand sentencing proceeding without said drugs did not require different result.

In prosecution on drug distribution charge, Dist. Ct. did not err in denying defendant’s motion to suppress his inculpatory statements made after his arrest, where defendant asserted that police lacked probable cause to arrest him. Police had probable cause to arrest defendant where, prior to his arrest: (1) police intercepted several telephone calls indicating that defendant and another individual were setting up drug deal; (2) on day of said deal, police observed another individual deliver plastic bag to defendant; and (3) another individual called defendant minutes after defendant received plastic bag to ask if defendant was satisfied with drugs. Record also supported police claim that defendant gave police consent to search his cell phone. Dist. Ct. erred, though, in sentencing defendant to 190-month term of incarceration, where Dist. Ct. failed to expressly state drug quantity it attributed to defendant or identify evidence it found reliable when making any drug quantity calculation.

In prosecution on wire fraud charge arising out of check-kiting scheme defendant used to generate working capital for his legitimate businesses, Dist. Ct. did not err in entering restitution order that totaled more than $1 million, even though defendant argued that $440,000 of said loss was generated at check cashing exchange, where owner of said exchange was complicit in scheme. Record showed that instant exchange suffered $440,000 in losses when defendant’s checks were not honored by defendant’s banks, and although defendant may have civil action against owner for contribution arising out of owner’s facilitating conduct, said fact did not relieve defendant of his obligation to compensate his victims.