United States v. Brian Fenner, 142 F.4th 510

Brian Fenner and Dennis Birkley were convicted by a jury in the Southern District of Indiana for mail and wire fraud, money laundering, and conspiracy, based on a coordinated scheme involving fraudulent mechanic’s liens and sham car auctions.
Fenner operated a towing company that, with Birkley’s financial backing, paid bankruptcy costs for financially distressed vehicle owners in exchange for vehicles, then inflated mechanic’s liens and obstructed legitimate creditors from recovering vehicles.
Vehicles were purportedly auctioned in sham sales with Birkley as the sole "buyer," but no money actually changed hands and procedural statutory requirements were ignored.
Fraudulently obtained car titles were laundered back into the market, defrauding approximately a hundred creditors and yielding over $1 million in proceeds.
Creditor lawsuits and administrative referrals spurred federal charges; both defendants appealed after their convictions, contesting evidentiary rulings, restitution, and other constitutional issues relating to the conduct of their trial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Kanetzke’s Testimony	Allowed improper expert testimony not disclosed as expert.	Kanetzke summarized admissible records using basic math, permissible as lay testimony.	Testimony was lay, not expert; district court did not abuse discretion.
Graham’s Testimony on Intent	Testified improperly about motives/intent.	Graham correctly summarized documents; intent inferences were for the jury.	Any error was harmless; overwhelming evidence supported verdict.
Admission of Birkley’s Statement (Bruton/Confrontation Clause)	Violated Fenner’s Sixth Amendment rights; jury heard co-defendant’s statement.	Statement consistent with Fenner’s defense, not facially incriminating or outcome-determinative.	No plain error; no reasonable probability verdict would differ.
Calculation of Restitution	Amounts not properly supported; should reflect actual recoverable value of liens.	Restitution properly tracks actual losses to direct victims per statute.	Restitution affirmed; calculation not plain error; compensation reflects victim losses.
Ex Post Facto Application of Mechanic’s Lien Statute	Conviction violated Ex Post Facto Clause due to statutory changes during scheme.	Only federal offenses charged; Indiana statute not relevant to conviction/sentence.	No violation; crimes were federal; statute version immaterial.

Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 (Confrontation Clause bars admission of a non-testifying co-defendant’s confession that facially implicates another defendant in a joint trial).
Richardson v. Marsh, 481 U.S. 200 (Distinguishes between facially incriminating confessions and statements incriminating only by linkage to other evidence for Bruton rule).
Gray v. Maryland, 523 U.S. 185 (Facially incriminating redacted confessions violate Bruton).
United States v. Lopez, 870 F.3d 573 (Lay summary testimony may include rational inferences from record evidence, but not opinions as to the defendant’s intent).
United States v. Stockheimer, 157 F.3d 1082 (Statements that are only incriminating when linked with other evidence do not violate Bruton).
United States v. Scheffer, 523 U.S. 303 (The credibility of witnesses and detection of lies is the jury’s function).