United States v. Brown
665 F.3d 1239
| 11th Cir. | 2011Background
- Brown was convicted after a jury trial of mail fraud and interstate transportation of forged securities and a restitution order of $120,421.59; the events center on a 2003 WM Funds account opened in the name of Weinstein with Brown listed as a tenant by entirety.
- Two Treasury checks totaling $297,435.83, purportedly endorsed by Weinstein, were attached to the Weinstein account application; Weinstein allegedly did not authorize the deposit, and the Weinstein account was never funded.
- Brown was also involved in two prior 2002 schemes (Winnick and Cassidy) using forged payees and social security numbers to open WM Funds accounts; these acts formed the basis for Rule 404(b) evidence sought by the government.
- The government introduced trial evidence including the Weinstein account application and related checks, testimony from Weinstein’s accountant and an IRS witness, and evidence about the Winnick and Cassidy accounts showing similar patterns and Brown’s sole check-writing control.
- Brown admitted he knew Clark and was familiar with the mutual funds; the defense argued identity theft, but the jury was instructed on the elements of mail fraud and §2314; restitution was calculated by including unindicted but related transactions.
- The district court concluded the Cassidy and Winnick transactions were part of the same scheme and thus includable in the MVRA restitution order, which the district court affirmed on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rule 404(b) admissibility of Winnick/Cassidy evidence | Brown's pretrial 404(b) motion was denied, but argues plain error for trial use | Evidence is extrinsic and prejudicial; claims unfair prejudice and delay | No error; limiting instruction cured prejudice; evidence probative of intent |
| Sufficiency of evidence for mail fraud | Evidence showed Brown’s intent and pattern across Weinstein, Winnick, Cassidy | Identity theft defense negates intent | Sufficient evidence supporting Count One |
| Value element of § 2314 (face value interpretation) | Face value equals value written on the face of the instrument | Value should reflect actual worth | Face value is the value indicated on the face; checks exceeded $5,000, support for conviction |
| Restitution inclusion of unindicted Cassidy/Winnick schemes | MVRA allows related conduct within the same scheme | Unindicted acts outside the indictment should not be included | Cassidy/Winnick properly included as relevant conduct under MVRA/Dickerson |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Spoerke, 568 F.3d 1236 (11th Cir. 2009) (limiting instruction cures prejudice in Rule 404(b) evidence)
- United States v. Dickerson, 370 F.3d 1330 (11th Cir. 2004) (restitution for conduct in the course of a scheme beyond indictment)
- United States v. Valladares, 544 F.3d 1257 (11th Cir. 2008) (MVRA victim scope and relevant conduct in restitution)
- United States v. Onyiego, 286 F.3d 249 (5th Cir. 2002) (face value meaning under § 2311/2314 (value))
- United States v. Robinson, 553 F.2d 429 (5th Cir. 1977) (face value concept applied to value of instruments)
- United States v. Sarro, 742 F.2d 1286 (11th Cir. 1984) (distinguishes paintings from financial instruments on value issue)
- Hughey v. United States, 495 U.S. 411 (1990) (foundation for victim scope and restitution considerations)
- United States v. Dickerson, 370 F.3d 1330 (11th Cir. 2004) (see above)