United States v. Desnoyers
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 5308
| 2d Cir. | 2011Background
- Desnoyers was licensed in New York to conduct air monitoring at asbestos abatement projects and to document results.
- Government charged conspiratorial violation of the Clean Air Act and mail fraud in connection with eight buildings of abatements.
- District court entered a judgment of acquittal on the conspiracy count, finding factual and legal defects in that count.
- Evidence showed seven of the eight buildings were not subject to the CAA asbestos removal regulations; 69 Clinton Street was contested as subject or not subject.
- Regulations apply based on building type and quantity of friable asbestos; large projects meet thresholds (260 linear feet or 160 square feet) while small do not.
- On appeal, the Second Circuit vacated the acquittal, reinstate the conspiracy verdict, and remanded to reinstate the conviction and resentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether conspiracy conviction had factual defect | Desnoyers argues CAA object not proven for 69 Clinton Street. | Desnoyers contends lack of evidence showing CAA applicability for the project invalidates conspiracy. | No factual defect; mail fraud object sufficed and evidence supported conspiracy across objects. |
| Whether conspiracy conviction had legal defect | Desnoyers claims CAA object legally defective because some projects weren’t subject to CAA. | Desnoyers argues error from misapplied law; jury asked to determine CAA applicability as fact. | No legal defect; jury properly instructed on CAA applicability and factual determinations. |
| Standard of review for acquittal after guilty verdict | US asserts standard of review for sufficiency de novo. | No contrary articulation; standard remains as stated by circuit. | De novo review with standard of constitutional sufficiency applied. |
| Impact of Papadakis caveat on multi-object conspiracy | Goverment urges caveat may not apply. | Desnoyers argues caveat could preclude conviction if only unproved part relevant. | Papadakis caveat not controlling; evidence tied to mail fraud and CAA object reduces prejudice concerns. |
| Effect of trial evidence on mail fraud vs. CAA object | Evidence relevant to both CAA and mail fraud supports conspiracy. | If CAA object failed, conspiracy must fail. | Evidence supports conspiracy; mail fraud object suffices; CAA defect not fatal. |
Key Cases Cited
- Griffin v. United States, 502 U.S. 46 (Sup. Ct. 1991) (distinguishes legal vs factual defects in multi-object conspiracy)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (Sup. Ct. 1979) (sufficiency standard: rational trier of fact could convict beyond reasonable doubt)
- Papadakis, 510 F.2d 287 (2d Cir. 1975) (caveat on multi-object conspiracy when evidence mainly concerns unproved part)
- Garcia v. United States, 992 F.2d 409 (2d Cir. 1993) (legal vs factual challenges; error where law definitions do not track statutory crime)
- Evans v. United States, 504 U.S. 255 (Sup. Ct. 1992) (requires quid pro quo for certain crimes; legal sufficiency depends on statute)
- United States v. Heras, 609 F.3d 101 (2d Cir. 2010) (standard of review for acquittal notwithstanding a verdict)
- United States v. Aguilar, 585 F.3d 652 (2d Cir. 2009) (evaluates sufficiency and application of law to conduct)
- Turner v. United States, 396 U.S. 398 (Sup. Ct. 1970) (conjoint charging and sufficiency principles in conspiracy cases)