Slip Opinion
6th Cir.2024Background
- Blessing Adeleke was convicted by a jury of sixteen counts of bank fraud and one count of conspiracy to commit bank fraud.
- Adeleke used the online aliases “DetecteD” and “DetectedBits” to orchestrate identity theft and bank fraud schemes, aided by co-defendant Kylie Harlow and her friend Carley Reading.
- The schemes involved using stolen personal information to purchase goods and commit check fraud by cashing fraudulent checks from a victim’s KeyBank account.
- Law enforcement linked Adeleke to the fraudulent activity through a series of online accounts, including Facebook and Gmail accounts, associated by email addresses, phone numbers, and IP addresses.
- The court sentenced Adeleke to 37 months of imprisonment and five years of supervised release after the jury’s guilty verdicts.
- Adeleke appealed, contesting both the sufficiency of the evidence against him and the expert testimony procedures at trial.
Issues
| Issue | Adeleke's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admission of FBI Expert Testimony | District court did not follow proper procedures and agent was unqualified as an expert on certain companies | Agent's general cyber crime expertise sufficed, and procedures were not violated; defense did not timely request a Daubert hearing | No reversible error; procedures and qualifications adequate |
| Sufficiency of Evidence | Evidence did not sufficiently connect Adeleke to the alias "DetecteD" and schemes | Multiple account ties, conduct, and connections showed Adeleke's involvement beyond reasonable doubt | Sufficient evidence supports convictions |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Jaffal, 79 F.4th 582 (6th Cir. 2023) (standard of review for evidentiary errors and harmless error)
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) (standards for expert witness admissibility)
- United States v. Johnson, 488 F.3d 690 (6th Cir. 2007) (procedures for admitting expert testimony at trial)
- United States v. Pearce, 912 F.2d 159 (6th Cir. 1990) (permits qualified law enforcement to testify as experts on criminal methods)
- United States v. Swafford, 385 F.3d 1026 (6th Cir. 2004) (approval of law enforcement expert testimony with jury instructions)
- Musacchio v. United States, 577 U.S. 237 (2016) (standard for sufficiency of evidence on appeal)
- United States v. Everett, 270 F.3d 986 (6th Cir. 2001) (elements required for a bank fraud conviction)
- United States v. Rogers, 769 F.3d 372 (6th Cir. 2014) (elements required for a conspiracy to commit bank fraud conviction)