United States v. Frank Pearson
676 F. App'x 202
| 4th Cir. | 2017Background
- Frank Michael Pearson was convicted in a bench trial of four counts of embezzlement from a program receiving federal benefits under 18 U.S.C. § 666(a)(1)(A).
- In district court Pearson moved for a competency finding but then declined to present arguments in support of incompetency.
- Evidence at trial included documents, bank statements, and testimony linking Pearson to the embezzlement scheme.
- After conviction, Pearson moved for a new trial under Brady v. Maryland, asserting the government suppressed evidence corroborating an anonymous letter alleging third‑party guilt; the letter was received after trial.
- The district court denied the competency challenge (by waiver), found the trial evidence sufficient, and denied the Brady-based new trial motion; the Fourth Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Competency to stand trial | Pearson argued he was incompetent and moved for a finding of incompetency | Government maintained Pearson waived the claim by declining to argue it in district court | Waived; appellate review barred because Pearson withdrew/failed to press the claim |
| Sufficiency of the evidence | Pearson argued the evidence was insufficient to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt | Government pointed to documents, bank records, and testimony tying Pearson to embezzlement | Affirmed; substantial evidence supported conviction |
| Brady violation / new trial | Pearson argued favorable evidence supporting third‑party culpability was suppressed (anonymous letter) | Government and district court said evidence was speculative and not shown to exist or be favorable and suppressed | Denied; speculative allegations do not meet Brady's requirement |
| Standard of review on new trial motion | Pearson implicitly argued for reversal of denial | Government argued abuse‑of‑discretion review applies | Affirmed; appellate court will not substitute its judgment for district court under abuse‑of‑discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (suppression of materially favorable evidence requires new trial)
- United States v. Robinson, 744 F.3d 293 (4th Cir.) (party who identifies then withdraws an issue waives it)
- United States v. Claridy, 601 F.3d 276 (4th Cir.) (waived claims not reviewable on appeal)
- United States v. Armel, 585 F.3d 182 (4th Cir.) (substantial‑evidence standard in bench trials)
- United States v. Wilson, 624 F.3d 640 (4th Cir.) (abuse‑of‑discretion review for denial of new trial)
- United States v. King, 628 F.3d 693 (4th Cir.) (three‑part Brady test)
- United States v. Caro, 597 F.3d 608 (4th Cir.) (speculation insufficient to satisfy Brady)