United States v. Barry Sussman
709 F.3d 155
| 3rd Cir. | 2013Background
- FTC civil action froze assets and sought $10,204,445 and equitable relief against Sussman and co-defendants; final civil injunction required turnover of coins and other assets to FTC; FTC later froze a Bank of New York safe deposit box containing gold coins owned by Sussman; Sussman accessed the box and removed coins, triggering criminal charges for theft of government property and obstruction of justice; district court's final civil order and injunction controlled ownership/possession issues; government charged in 2008, trial occurred in 2009 resulting in convictions on Count 1 (theft of government property) and Count 2 (obstruction of justice); appeal challenges sufficiency of evidence, missing transcripts, redacted civil documents admitted at trial, and jury instruction issues; court affirmed convictions on all issues.
- The coins were explicitly ordered by the civil judgment to be turned over to the FTC; the FTC maintained ownership/control through the order and freeze, creating a sufficient basis for “money, or thing of value of the United States” under 18 U.S.C. § 641; Sussman removed coins from a frozen box despite the final order and supervisory control by the FTC; the Government established “due administration of justice” interference under 18 U.S.C. § 1503(a) by Sussman’s act of removing the coins and delaying return; missing transcripts were reconstructed under Rule 10(c) and found not to prejudice the defendant; redacted civil documents were properly admitted under 403/404(b) considerations; the district court’s theory of defense instruction was given in a permissible form; overall, the appellate court affirmed the convictions.
- The district court’s final order in the civil case and the July 18, 2005 and related communications reflect the FTC’s ongoing control and ownership interest in the coins, which supported the § 641 money-of-the-U.S. argument and undermined Sussman’s ownership theory; the obstruction charge was supported by the nexus between the box contents and the pending civil/monetary proceeding; the missing transcripts were reconstructible and did not prejudice; the redacted evidence was properly admitted to illuminate intent; the proposed theory of defense was accommodated via a revised instruction; the court found no plain error in the obstruction instruction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether coins removed from a frozen safe deposit box qualified as money or thing of value of the United States | Sussman (plaintiff) argues coins were not U.S. money/value when removed | United States contends coins remained government property under final order | Yes; coins were money/thing of value under §641 at removal |
| Whether removal interfered with a pending judicial proceeding under §1503(a) | Sussman claims no judicial proceeding was affected; relied on voluntary FTC/BNY arrangement | United States argues final order and frozen box constituted a judicial proceeding; interference occurred | Yes; removal interfered with the due administration of justice |
| Whether missing transcripts require reversal | Sussman asserts prejudice from missing Madonia and Ashe transcripts | Government contends reconstruction suffices and no prejudice shown | No; reconstruction adequate, no reversible prejudice |
| Whether redacted civil-action documents admitted at trial were improperly prejudicial under Rule 403/404(b) | Redactions prejudiced the defense and distorted civil action context | Redacted documents were probative of intent and properly limited | No; court did not abuse discretion in admitting redacted documents |
| Whether the court erred in the defense theory instruction | Sussman sought broader theory of defense instruction | District Court provided a proper, narrowed version addressing intent | No; instruction was proper and not reversible |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Kemp, 500 F.3d 257 (3d Cir. 2007) (highly deferential sufficiency review; jury verdict sustained)
- United States v. Helbling, 209 F.3d 226 (3d Cir. 2000) (defers to jury verdict in sufficiency review)
- United States v. Coyle, 63 F.3d 1239 (3d Cir. 1995) (standard for sufficiency of evidence in criminal trials)
- United States v. Scolnick, 392 F.2d 320 (3d Cir. 1968) (rescue/ownership tests for government property contexts)
- United States v. Milton, 8 F.3d 39 (D.C. Cir. 1993) (supervision and control as tests for money/United States property under §641)