United States v. Arnold (Robert)
696 F. App'x 903
| 10th Cir. | 2017Background
- Robert Arnold and family members ran a program called the United Auto Buyers Co-op Association; victims surrendered financing-incentive rebates to a CECU Trust purportedly used to make their car loan payments.
- Some victims initially received payments, but payments later stopped and funds were used for the Arnolds’ personal expenses.
- Ricky and Robyn Arnold and Richard Arnold Sr. pleaded guilty; Robert Arnold went to trial and was convicted of wire fraud and conspiracy to commit wire fraud.
- Evidence at trial included: a vehicle-financing application with a handwritten reference to the Association (Exhibit 401); screenshots of text messages between Arnold and a victim (Exhibit 420); and a document containing copied/pasted text-message contents from another victim (Exhibit 510).
- Arnold appealed, arguing (1) erroneous admission of Exhibits 401, 420, and 510, and (2) insufficient evidence to support the convictions.
- The Tenth Circuit affirmed, holding the district court did not abuse its discretion on evidentiary rulings and that circumstantial evidence sufficed to prove knowledge, participation, and intent to defraud.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of Exhibit 401 (vehicle application with handwritten note) | Gov: document is self-authenticating under Fed. R. Evid. 902, admissible as business record | Arnold: not properly authenticated under Rule 901 and handwritten note was unduly prejudicial | Admitted; Rule 902 satisfied Rule 901 and the notation was not unfairly prejudicial |
| Admissibility of Exhibit 420 (screenshots of texts) | Gov: screenshots reflect texts saved on victim’s phone and were authenticated | Arnold: authentication failed because witness unsure screenshots contained all messages | Admitted; prosecution only offered screenshots of what Georgia printed and witness testimony sufficed to authenticate |
| Admissibility of Exhibit 510 (copied/pasted text messages) | Gov: victim testified he copied originals into the document, establishing authenticity | Arnold: cut-and-paste destroyed distinctive identifiers and failed Rule 901 authentication | Admitted; victim’s testimony provided adequate foundation, defects go to weight not admissibility |
| Sufficiency of evidence for conspiracy and wire fraud | Gov: circumstantial evidence (communications, structuring deals, failure to respond, implausible investment returns) establishes knowledge, participation, and intent | Arnold: lack of direct evidence of knowledge/intent and insufficient proof of coordination | Affirmed; circumstantial evidence permitted a rational jury to find knowledge, knowing participation, concert of action, and intent to defraud |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Blechman, 657 F.3d 1052 (10th Cir. 2011) (evidentiary rulings reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- United States v. Gordon, 710 F.3d 1124 (10th Cir. 2013) (standard for reversible abuse of discretion)
- United States v. Chanthadara, 230 F.3d 1237 (10th Cir. 2000) (abuse-of-discretion framework)
- United States v. Yeley-Davis, 632 F.3d 673 (10th Cir. 2011) (authentication of unique, identifiable, and stable electronic evidence)
- United States v. Smith, 534 F.3d 1211 (10th Cir. 2008) (chain-of-custody defects go to weight, not admissibility)
- United States v. Dazey, 403 F.3d 1147 (10th Cir. 2005) (jury may reject implausible representations as evidence of fraudulent intent)
- United States v. Rahseparian, 231 F.3d 1257 (10th Cir. 2000) (mere family involvement in a scheme insufficient alone to prove specific intent)