United States v. Grady Davis
735 F.3d 194
| 5th Cir. | 2013Background
- Davis was charged with conspiracy to commit bank fraud and six counts of bank fraud; conspiracy acquitted, bank-fraud counts convicted.
- Counts 2–7 allege a scheme to defraud American Express Company, a depository institution holding company (DIHC) under FDIA definitions.
- Government relied on Agent Foley and FDIC-insurance evidence to prove DIHC status and that American Express held the bank (AECB).
- Jury instruction emphasized an uncharged theory requiring only that AMEX be FDIC-insured, rather than proving DIHC control relations.
- Court held the DIHC element was not proven as charged, reversing counts 2–7 and remanding for further proceedings.
- Standard of review: de novo review for sufficiency of evidence, with deference to jury verdicts; constitutional due-process requirement applies.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether government proved the financial-institution element as charged | Davis: AMEX DIHC theory not proven | Davis: insufficient evidence of DIHC control | Convictions reversed; DIHC element not proven beyond reasonable doubt. |
| Whether AMEX’s control over AECB was proved | Government: evidence showed AMEX as victim and AECB as bank | Government failed to show AMEX controlled AECB | Not proven; insufficient showing of the control relationship. |
| Whether trial evidence constructively amended the indictment | Davis: alternate theory allowed without charge | Government relied on uncharged theory | Constructive-amendment issue noted; remand for proper proceedings. |
| Whether district court properly instructed on the DIHC element | Instruction based on FDIC status rather than charged DIHC | Not raised as sole error | Instruction permitted uncharged theory; problematic reliance on DIHC construct. |
| Standard of review and remedy on remand | De novo sufficiency review | Maintain conviction if any supported by evidence | Remand for entry of acquittals on Counts 2–7 if DIHC not proven; dismissal on remand. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Guerrero, 169 F.3d 933 (5th Cir. 1999) (warns on proving the financial-institution element in bank fraud)
- United States v. Schultz, 17 F.3d 723 (5th Cir. 1994) (reverses bank-fraud when evidence fails to prove DIHC status)
- United States v. Trevino, 720 F.2d 395 (5th Cir. 1983) (illustrates deficiencies in proving element of bank fraud)
- United States v. Platenburg, 657 F.2d 797 (5th Cir. Unit A Oct. 1981) (emphasizes simple and indispensable proof of financial-institution element)
- United States v. Maner, 611 F.2d 107 (5th Cir. 1980) (calls for clear proof of the DIHC element)
- In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358 (U.S. 1970) (due-process requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt)