United States v. Andrew Lucas
709 F. App'x 119
| 3rd Cir. | 2017Background
- Andrew Lucas, financial advisor, sought to acquire Burke Farm in NJ and applied to Central Jersey Bank in December 2009, submitting false financial statements and documents listing his father as co-purchaser/guarantor.
- In February 2010 Lucas solicited $250,000 from mentally ill client Robert Janowski, representing it would be invested in a company called VLM at 6% interest and secured by VLM assets; the promissory note bore a forged signature of Lucas’s cousin, Thomas Littlefield.
- Lucas formed VLM only after soliciting the funds, used Littlefield’s identity on corporate/IRS forms without his knowledge, deposited Janowski’s wire into a VLM account, then used the funds to help buy Burke Farm.
- A grand jury indicted Lucas on an 11-count indictment (wire fraud, illegal monetary transaction, loan application fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1014, false statements to the IRS, aggravated identity theft, obstruction, and falsification of records); jury convicted on all counts; sentenced to 60 months imprisonment and forfeiture of Burke Farm interest.
- On appeal Lucas challenged evidentiary rulings (repayment evidence), jury instructions about intent to defraud, sufficiency of materiality proof, alleged prosecutorial misconduct, and alleged variance/constructive amendment as to the loan-application fraud charge.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Lucas) | Defendant's Argument (Gov't) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Exclusion of repayment evidence | Court wrongly excluded evidence showing Lucas repaid Janowski per loan terms | Repayment evidence was allowed via a stipulation; defense tactically chose stipulation | No reversible error — stipulation admitted; any exclusion claim invited error |
| Jury instruction on intent to defraud | Jury should be instructed that intent to repay is dispositive of no intent to defraud | Repayment is not dispositive; intent to induce harm can exist despite repayment plans | Affirmed; instruction permitting finding intent despite hope to repay was not plain error |
| Sufficiency: materiality for wire fraud/illegal transaction | Misrepresentations were not shown to be material to Janowski’s decision | Materiality is objective; need not prove actual reliance, only that misrepresentations would matter to a reasonable person | Affirmed; evidence supported objective materiality |
| Prosecutorial misconduct (Napue) | Prosecution knowingly allowed false testimony that Janowski thought he was buying stock | Government argued remarks simply restated Janowski’s testimony and were probative of confusion/misleading conduct | No plain error; prosecutor’s remarks fairly reflected witness testimony |
| Variance / constructive amendment re: loan-application fraud | Indictment charged applying for a loan but evidence showed assuming control of existing loan — fatal variance | The indictment charged lying on an application in connection with a loan for Burke Farm; conviction tracked that conduct | No constructive amendment or prejudicial variance; claim fails |
Key Cases Cited
- Console v. United States, 13 F.3d 641 (3d Cir. 1993) (invited error doctrine bars attack on trial concessions)
- Lockwood v. United States, 789 F.3d 773 (7th Cir. 2015) (stipulations bind parties; defendants cannot later claim lack of evidence)
- Treadwell v. United States, 593 F.3d 990 (9th Cir. 2010) (repayment does not negate intent to defraud for inducement-based fraud)
- Hamilton v. United States, 499 F.3d 734 (7th Cir. 2007) (same)
- Curry v. United States, 461 F.3d 452 (4th Cir. 2006) (same)
- Jimenez v. United States, 513 F.3d 62 (3d Cir. 2008) (repayment plus other evidence may be relevant in unique fraud contexts like check kiting)
- Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1 (1999) (materiality in fraud is an objective test; actual reliance not required)
- Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264 (1959) (government must correct known false testimony)
- Daraio v. United States, 445 F.3d 253 (3d Cir. 2006) (distinguishes constructive amendment from variance; prejudice required for reversible variance)
- Vosburgh v. United States, 602 F.3d 512 (3d Cir. 2010) (no constructive amendment where conviction tracks charged conduct)
- Olano v. United States, 507 U.S. 725 (1993) (plain-error standard for unpreserved trial errors)