United States v. Green
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 16364
| 7th Cir. | 2011Background
- Braziel, Miller, and Green were convicted in the Seventh Circuit of participating in a mortgage-fraud scheme in the Chicago area from 2003 to 2005.
- The scheme involved recruiters enlisting buyers, financiers providing funds, administrators creating fake documents, and loan officers submitting fraudulent applications to lenders.
- Over 70 properties were acquired with $7.2 million in loans, with lenders suffering about $2.2 million in losses when borrowers defaulted.
- An indictment charging multiple defendants for mail and wire fraud was filed on February 5, 2008; Braziel and Miller were tried with co-defendants, Green separately, and all appealed their convictions and sentences.
- On appeal, the court addressed Bruton issues for Braziel, a two-level sophisticated-means enhancement for Braziel, sufficiency of Miller’s evidence, and various Green challenges including Rule 902(11) admissibility, references to 1014, an ostrich instruction, and loss calculation.
- The Seventh Circuit affirmed all convictions and sentences.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bruton redaction sufficiency | Braziel contends redaction still implicates him. | Braziel argues redacted reference violates Bruton. | Redaction did not violate Bruton; no error. |
| Sophisticated means enhancement | Whole scheme was sophisticated; applies to Braziel. | Enhancement should reflect Braziel's conduct, not the whole scheme. | Court affirmed enhancement as proper under relevant conduct and scheme sophistication. |
| Miller sufficiency of evidence | Testimony from co-defendants supports guilt beyond reasonable doubt. | Co-defendant testimony unreliable; insufficient evidence. | Evidence sufficient; conviction sustained. |
| Green Rule 902(11) admissibility | Batalla certifications properly admitted under Rule 902(11). | Certifications may violate confrontation rights and reliability. | Harmless error; no prejudice; certification admissible under the circumstances. |
| Green ostrich instruction | Evidence supported knowledge by Green; instruction appropriate. | Ostrich instruction was improper in context. | District court did not abuse discretion; instruction proper. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 (1968) (confrontation clause and co-defendant statements in joint trials)
- Richardson v. Marsh, 481 U.S. 200 (1987) (redaction standards for co-defendant statements)
- Gray v. Maryland, 523 U.S. 185 (1998) (face-to-face identification and Bruton boundaries)
- United States v. Stockheimer, 157 F.3d 1082 (7th Cir. 1998) (no Bruton violation where redacted statement does not incriminate alone)
- United States v. Hoover, 246 F.3d 1054 (7th Cir. 2001) (alias/pseudonym stand-ins may violate Bruton)
- United States v. Wayland, 549 F.3d 526 (7th Cir. 2008) (upholding application of sophisticated means enhancement)
- United States v. Radziszewski, 474 F.3d 480 (7th Cir. 2007) (loss calculation methods in fraud sentencing)