United States v. Davis
2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 142322
D. Mass.2011Background
- Davis was convicted after a two-day jury trial of aiding and abetting a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 287; he moves for judgment of acquittal under Rule 29(c).
- Evidence shows Davis provided name, address, phone number, and SSN to a principal, received and cashed a $7,019.75 refund, and turned proceeds over to the principal minus $1,000 kept by Davis.
- Indictment charged a false claim under § 287, specifically a 2008 Form 5405 claiming the First Time Homebuyer Tax Credit; jury instruction linked substantive liability to knowing the false claim and aiding liability to knowledge of a material false statement.
- Jury asked whether Davis needed to know the specific false claim; the court initially aligned aiding and substantive knowledge, but later, after Garcia-Rosa, instructed that aiding requires knowledge that a material false statement would be made and that the principal would be aided.
- Garcia-Rosa and related authorities hold that aiding and abetting does not require perfect knowledge of the details of the crime; liability can attach for foreseeable consequences.
- The court denied Davis’s Rule 29(c) motion, holding the evidence reasonably supports that the false claim was a foreseeable objective Davis aided, thus sustaining the conviction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does aiding and abetting require knowledge of the specific crime charged? | Davis argues knowledge of the specific Form 5405 false claim is required. | The government contends knowledge of a material false statement suffices; specific details need not be known. | Knowledge of a material false statement suffices. |
| Is the evidence sufficient to prove aiding and abetting given foreseeability of the false claim? | N/A | N/A | Yes; principal’s false claim was reasonably foreseeable, supporting aiding and abetting liability. |
Key Cases Cited
- Garcia-Rosa v. United States, 876 F.2d 209 (1st Cir. 1989) (aider and abettor need not know the details of execution)
- United States v. Walker, 99 F.3d 439 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (probable and natural consequences doctrine and same intent not required)
- United States v. Spinney, 65 F.3d 231 (1st Cir. 1995) (shared knowledge not equal to actual knowledge; liability for foreseeable acts)
- United States v. Beck, 615 F.2d 441 (7th Cir. 1980) (aider and abettor liable for principal’s foreseeable false statements)
- United States v. Loder, 23 F.3d 586 (1st Cir. 1994) (knowledge that one is furthering fraud need not be aware of all details)
- United States v. Hamblin, 911 F.2d 551 (11th Cir. 1990) (aiding and abetting liability does not require knowledge of the specific means)