United States v. Boone
628 F.3d 927
| 7th Cir. | 2010Background
- Boone was indicted in 2008 alongside Troutman in a political corruption scheme where developers paid bribes for the alderman's office to obtain support.
- Troutman pled guilty to two counts; Boone was tried on four counts and convicted of mail fraud and making false statements to the FBI, but acquitted on bribery charges.
- The mail fraud scheme involved pay-to-play for letters of support for zoning, permits, and other services in the 20th Ward.
- Evidence showed Boone, as Troutman’s housing coordinator, solicited and facilitated bribes, including multiple large cash payments from victims.
- The district court admitted evidence about Plomin and Pattison (post-mailing) and extensive Maryland Street property dealings to prove the scheme and Boone’s knowledge; Boone challenged these admissions.
- The Seventh Circuit analyzed whether such evidence was properly admitted under inextricable intertwinement doctrine, Rule 403, and relevance to the scheme and knowledge.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence of uncharged acts was admissible to prove the scheme | Boone argues it's not relevant or prejudicial. | Boone contends evidence is prejudicial and should be excluded. | Evidence admissible to prove the scheme and knowledge; not an abuse of discretion. |
| Whether the Plomin and Pattison testimony was properly admitted | Evidence helps show open, blatant scheme and knowledge. | Post-mailing acts and non-overlapping participants are irrelevant and prejudicial. | Admissible as direct evidence of the scheme and knowledge; not reversible error. |
| Whether the Maryland Street property evidence was properly admitted | Shows breadth and manner of scheme and Boone's knowledge. | Should be limited to Boone’s personal knowledge and prior acts. | Admissible to establish false knowledge to FBI and ongoing scheme; not an abuse. |
| Whether the timing of the mailing limited the scope of admissible evidence | Mailing is jurisdictional, but scheme evidence can extend before/after. | Evidence beyond the mailing is irrelevant to the charged act. | Scope not limited by mailing date; can prove overarching scheme with relevant evidence. |
Key Cases Cited
- Schmuck v. United States, 489 U.S. 705 (Supreme Court, 1989) (mailings may be not essential; a step in the plot suffices)
- Lanas, 324 F.3d 894 (7th Cir. 2003) (scheme can span years; mailings are jurisdictional prerequisites)
- Gorman, 613 F.3d 711 (7th Cir. 2010) (inextricable intertwinement doctrine overused; should not govern admissibility)
- Boisture, 563 F.3d 295 (7th Cir. 2009) (elements of mail fraud require proving a defrauding scheme and intent)
- Taylor, 522 F.3d 731 (7th Cir. 2008) (evidence of scheme and knowledge can be inferred from totality of circumstances)