United States v. Frantz Pierre
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 13348
8th Cir.2015Background
- Pierre is charged in Minnesota with conspiracy to defraud the government and money laundering; Florida conviction preceded the Minnesota indictment.
- Florida indictment charged conspiracy to defraud, conspiracy to use unauthorized access devices, and aggravated identity theft; Pierre was convicted on all counts in Florida.
- District court denied Pierre’s motions to dismiss on double jeopardy grounds; Pierre appeals intermediately.
- The district court and this court apply a totality-of-the-circumstances test to determine whether two charged conspiracies are the same.
- Key factors: timing, co-conspirators, offenses charged, description of offenses, and locations of conspiracies; evidence from prior trial may be considered.
- Court concludes Florida and Minnesota conspiracies are separate and the money laundering count does not duplicate the Florida conviction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are Florida and Minnesota conspiracies separate? | Pierre contends they are the same conspiracy. | State from Florida and Minnesota show different conspirators and timelines. | Yes; they are separate conspiracies. |
| Does a Florida conviction bar the Minnesota conspiracy charge? | Florida conviction covers same conduct as Minnesota conspiracy. | Different acts and targets; no same conspiracy proven. | Not barred; separate conspiracies exist and money laundering not duplicative. |
| Was an evidentiary hearing required on the double jeopardy issue? | An evidentiary hearing could illuminate overlapping acts. | Record shows enough to decide; hearing unnecessary. | No abuse of discretion; no hearing required. |
Key Cases Cited
- Braverman v. United States, 317 U.S. 49 (Supreme Court, 1942) (prohibits subdividing a single conspiracy into multiple violations)
- United States v. Thomas, 759 F.2d 659 (8th Cir. 1985) (totality-of-the-circumstances test for separate conspiracies)
- United States v. Kienzle, 896 F.2d 326 (8th Cir. 1990) (overlap in timing does not preclude separate conspiracies)
- United States v. Tanner, 860 F.2d 864 (8th Cir. 1988) (presence of different co-conspirators supports separate conspiracies)
- United States v. Felix, 503 U.S. 378 (Supreme Court, 1992) (conviction for substantive offense not equal to conspiracy charge)