United States v. Christi
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 12480
1st Cir.2012Background
- Christi and Felleman engaged in multiple fraudulent deposits of checks from 2000-2002, culminating in a $320,000 Allied Building Products deposit.
- The Allied check was allegedly endorsed over to a defunct corporation, with funds intended for transfer to Taiwan.
- Christi and Felleman arranged wire transfers and withdrawals in furtherance of the scheme, including payments to Nigeria.
- The Allied check was dishonored as an altered instrument; Christi provided inconsistent accounts of the source of funds.
- Christi was convicted on conspiracy, bank fraud, wire fraud, and money laundering; Felleman pled guilty.
- Christi challenged the sufficiency of the evidence and argued that public access to jury instructions was improperly limited.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of the evidence | Christi argues the evidence shows only presence at events, not guilt. | Christi contends the evidence does not justify reasonable inferences of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. | Evidence supported guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. |
| Rule 29/plain error for multiple charges | Christi asserts insufficiency to support multiple charges; plain error review applies. | Christi did not preserve Rule 29 error; argues plain error standard should apply. | No reversible error; trial court properly submitted charges. |
| Aiding and abetting vs. principal liability | Christi cannot be linked to involvement beyond mere presence. | Christi actively associated with the fraud and aided the scheme. | Evidence supported aiding and abetting liability; no error. |
| Public access to the courtroom during instructions | Closing doors violated Sixth Amendment public trial right. | Defense did not object, waiving the claim; rights not violated. | Waived; no Sixth Amendment violation established. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Seward, 272 F.3d 831 (7th Cir. 2001) (plain-error standard when Rule 29 issues not preserved)
- United States v. Troy, 583 F.3d 20 (1st Cir. 2009) (standard of review for sufficiency challenges follows reasonable-doubt standard)
- United States v. Rivera‑Rivera, 555 F.3d 277 (1st Cir. 2009) (plain-error review for trial conduct and evidentiary issues)
- United States v. Polanco, 634 F.3d 39 (1st Cir. 2011) (assessing credibility and post-event statements of a defendant)
- United States v. Owens, 483 F.3d 48 (1st Cir. 2007) ( Sixth Amendment public-trial rights are structural)
- Peretz v. United States, 501 U.S. 923 (1991) (public-trial waiver principle; structural concerns noted)
- Levine v. United States, 362 U.S. 610 (1960) (public-trial rights and Sixth Amendment values apply across contexts)
- United States v. Jimenez, 512 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2007) (invites response when court suggests objecting party should speak)
- Scott v. United States, 564 F.3d 34 (1st Cir. 2009) (plain-error review when no timely objection is raised)