Criminal Law

In prosecution on wire fraud charge stemming from defendant’s participation in real estate scheme in which defendant deceived both buyers and loan companies in purchase of homes, Dist. Ct. did not err in admitting photographs of subject homes that were taken three to six years after end of scheme. Said photographs were relevant to inform jury about size, location and composition of homes, and jury was informed about timing of photographs. Moreover, Dist. Ct. did not err in admitting evidence of fraudulent home sale involving defendant that was not included in charged offense since such sale was relevant to: (1) establish defendant’s intent to defraud in charged offense, as well as demonstrate his knowledge and modus operandi; and (2) refute defendant’s claim that he was innocent pawn.

In prosecution on arson charges stemming from defendant’s setting fire to Planned Parenthood clinic, Dist. Ct. did not err in giving instruction to jury that defined term “maliciously” as requiring proof that defendant acted intentionally or with deliberate disregard of likelihood that damage or injury would result from setting fire at said clinic, since said instruction allowed jury to properly weigh defendant’s intent in starting fire. Moreover, defendant’s proffered instruction that required jury to find that fire was set “without just cause or reason,” was properly rejected where defendant failed to cite any cognizable legal justification for starting fire at clinic.

Defendant was not entitled to new trial on mail fraud charges stemming from scheme in which defendant obtained confidential bank information from victims and then withdrew funds from their accounts, even though prosecutor improperly withheld from defendant two emails indicating that: (1) defendant’s daughter was observed by police entering information into defendant’s laptop computer at time of execution of search warrant; and (2) police intended to arrest defendant and others when executing warrant. Neither email was material in sense that information in either email would have put defense of case in different light had either email been known prior to trial, given overwhelming nature of defendant’s guilt indicating that defendant had recruited individuals to assist in fraud scheme, falsified documents and collected profits from said fraud. Fact that defendant may not have entered information in his computer did not require different result, and defendant otherwise could have obtained from his daughter circumstances surrounding execution of search warrant.

Defendant was not entitled to new trial on wire fraud charges stemming from scheme to defraud bank out of mortgage proceeds stemming from submission of fraudulent loan applications containing false information about applicants’ income, assets and source of earnest money payments, even though defendant argued that fed. govt. or state authorities failed to disclose what they did with seized property belonging to defendant in unrelated criminal case. Fed. govt. eventually learned that said property was in possession of municipal police department, and thus defendant could not establish Brady violation where neither federal govt. nor any actors assisting federal govt. had possession of subject evidence. Moreover, defendant failed to exercise reasonable diligence by asking municipal police dept. for said evidence once he became aware of their possession of his property.