Clearwater Criminal Lawyer Blog
People convicted of federal white-collar offenses will often pursue multi-pronged appeals, raising both evidentiary and procedural challenges. However, the standards governing such appeals are highly deferential to the government, and courts are generally reluctant to overturn jury verdicts absent clear error. A recent Florida decision highlights the difficulty of reversing white-collar convictions, even where the defendant raises issues such as sufficiency of the evidence, variance from the indictment, and allegedly improper conduct by the prosecution. If you are accused of a white-collar crime and have questions about your rights, it is smart to confer with a Clearwater white-collar crime defense attorney as soon as possible.
History of the Case
It is alleged that the defendant served as an agent of a Florida charter school that received significant federal funds. It is reported that during two one-year periods, the defendant embezzled or misappropriated funds belonging to the school, converting the money to personal use. Allegedly, the amount exceeded $5,000 in each instance, triggering federal jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 666(a)(1)(A), which prohibits theft or bribery involving federally funded programs.
It is further alleged that, in addition to the theft charges, the defendant engaged in a broader scheme to defraud, resulting in 18 counts of wire fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1343. Reportedly, the wire fraud involved the transmission of fraudulent claims or documents with the intent to secure funds to which the defendant was not lawfully entitled.
It is reported that the case proceeded to trial, where a jury convicted the defendant on all 20 counts, two for theft concerning programs receiving federal funds and 18 for wire fraud. The trial court sentenced the defendant to 40 months’ imprisonment, to be served concurrently across all counts, followed by a three-year term of supervised release. The trial court deferred the ruling on restitution at the time of sentencing but later issued an amended judgment requiring the defendant to pay over $550,000 in restitution. Notably, the defendant did not file an amended notice of appeal after the restitution order was entered.
Grounds for Reversing White Collar Crime Convictions
On appeal, the defendant raised six arguments, each of which was considered and rejected by the Eleventh Circuit. First, the court addressed the sufficiency of the evidence, concluding that the government had presented enough proof for a reasonable jury to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Citing United States v. Keen, the court held that the government satisfied all statutory elements under § 666, including agency, federal funding, unauthorized conversion, and value exceeding $5,000. As to wire fraud, the court emphasized that intent to defraud may be inferred from circumstantial evidence, including profit derived from the scheme, citing United States v. Waters and United States v. Machado.
Second, the defendant argued that the trial evidence materially varied from or constructively amended the indictment. The court rejected this, stating that the indictment alleged broad categories of conduct and that the evidence presented at trial was consistent with those allegations. Citing United States v. Gold and United States v. Goldstein, the court explained that a variance is fatal only if it alters the essential elements or prejudices the defendant’s ability to mount a defense. No such prejudice was found.
Third, the defendant raised a Brady violation, claiming that the government withheld a potentially exculpatory letter authored by a defense witness. The court found no merit in this claim, reasoning that the defendant could have obtained the letter through reasonable diligence and that its contents did not undermine confidence in the verdict under the standard set forth in Kyles v. Whitley.
Fourth, the court reviewed the jury instructions and found no abuse of discretion. Although the district court declined to adopt some of the defendant’s proposed instructions, the court held that the instructions given were accurate and did not mislead the jury. The panel cited United States v. Gumbs and United States v. Fulford in affirming the trial court’s discretion over the form and substance of the instructions.
Fifth, the defendant contended that improper remarks made by the prosecution during closing warranted a new trial. The court disagreed, noting that the comments were isolated and that the trial judge issued curative instructions. It reaffirmed the principle from United States v. Woods and United States v. Feldman that prosecutorial misconduct must be both pervasive and prejudicial to justify reversal—conditions not present in this case.
Finally, the defendant challenged the restitution order. However, because the defendant failed to file a notice of appeal from the amended judgment that imposed restitution, the appellate court held that it lacked jurisdiction to review the issue. The court reiterated that timely appeal is a jurisdictional prerequisite when restitution is imposed through a deferred judgment.
Consult a Skilled Clearwater White-Collar Criminal Defense Attorney Today
White-collar criminal prosecutions can result in severe penalties, including imprisonment, If you are under investigation or facing federal charges, it is essential to retain experienced counsel who can build a strong defense from the outset. The seasoned Clearwater criminal defense attorneys at Hanlon Law are dedicated to protecting the rights of the accused and delivering strategic advocacy in complex cases, and if you hire us, we will advocate zealously on your behalf. Contact our office at 727-897-5413 or complete our online form to schedule a consultation.