United States v. Engelmann
2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 140546
S.D. Iowa2011Background
- Defendant Marc Engelmann, an attorney, was charged by indictment with nine counts: conspiracy to commit bank fraud or wire fraud, two counts of bank fraud, and six counts of wire fraud.
- Evidence showed Engelmann knew about dual prices and kickbacks in mortgage closings involving Laures, Herdrich, and Hanneken, with Laures inflating purchase prices and returning kickbacks to buyers.
- Laures received inflated prices; lenders funded based on those inflated amounts; the kickbacks were not disclosed on HUD-1 forms and not to lenders or Excel Title.
- Engelmann admitted knowledge of dual prices and kickbacks but claimed Excel Title and lenders were aware and thus he lacked fraudulent intent; witnesses contradicted him.
- A jury convicted Engelmann on Counts One through Nine on September 13, 2011; he later moved for a new trial arguing improper good-faith instructions and Rule 615 violations.
- The court denied the new-trial request, finding the good-faith instruction adequate and no prejudice from any sequestration-violation-related conduct.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standard for granting a new trial | McNamara; miscarriage of justice warrants new trial | Rule 33 requires careful, sparing use; possible miscarriage if errors affected verdict | New trial denied; no miscarriage of justice shown |
| Adequacy of the good faith instruction | Model instruction was sufficient; no need for heightened language | Requested Ammons-based language was necessary for clarity | Instruction adequate; no error requiring a new trial |
| Alleged Rule 615 sequestration violation (SA Huber/SA McMillan) | Overheard discussion tainted testimony and violated sequestration | No prejudice; agent-witness contact limited and substance not affected | No basis for new trial; if violation occurred, no prejudice shown |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Whitehill, 532 F.3d 746 (8th Cir. 2008) (good-faith defense instruction adequate; model instruction suffices)
- United States v. Brown, 478 F.3d 926 (8th Cir. 2007) (good-faith defense adequately conveyed within whole instructions)
- United States v. Ammons, 464 F.2d 414 (8th Cir. 1972) (requested language cited by defendant for good-faith concept)
- United States v. Smith, 104 F.3d 145 (8th Cir. 1997) (discretion in responding to jury requests for supplemental instructions)
- United States v. Abdul-Aziz, 486 F.3d 471 (8th Cir. 2007) (guidance on responding to jury's request to clarify instructions)
- United States v. Beckman, 222 F.3d 512 (8th Cir. 2000) (provide core instruction and avoid over-elaboration)
- United States v. Collins, 340 F.3d 672 (8th Cir. 2003) (sequestration violation showed no prejudice)
- United States v. Kindle, 925 F.2d 272 (8th Cir. 1991) (agent-witness contact not necessarily barred by sequestration order)