United States v. Gregory Walker
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 5462
| 7th Cir. | 2014Background
- Gregory Walker was convicted by a jury of two counts of wire fraud for obtaining mortgage loans on two properties (Kingston and Park Forest) using fraudulent loan applications and a straw purchaser (then-girlfriend Tanya McChristion); the scheme involved at least ten loans and caused about $956,300 in losses to Long Beach Mortgage.
- Walker acted as both fraudulent buyer and seller; loan processor Carol Simmons prepared and submitted false loan applications; Walker received portions of loan proceeds through his company.
- Evidence from a 2006 state search (property seized by South Holland Police and suppressed in state court as Fourth Amendment violation) existed but was not produced to Walker in the federal case; the government stated its federal evidence came from lenders and HUD, not the seized items.
- Defense counsel sought information about the location/status of the seized items; the government reported the items remained with South Holland PD and had no connection to the federal investigation; defense did not pursue obtaining the items further.
- At trial, the district court refused Walker’s proposed "buyer–seller" jury instruction; Walker was convicted on Counts Two and Three, received concurrent 60-month sentences (below Guidelines), and the court ordered $956,300 restitution based on the PSR’s loss calculations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Walker) | Defendant's Argument (Government) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Brady violation for failure to obtain/produce South Holland PD evidence | Suppressed seized evidence was favorable and material; its absence prevented presentation of defense | Government had no access/knowledge of seized items; it disclosed location; items were not suppressed from defendant | No Brady violation; Walker failed to show government suppression and did not exercise diligence to obtain items (plain-error/abuse-of-discretion fail) |
| District court’s refusal to give buyer–seller jury instruction | Instruction necessary to present theory that transactions were mere buyer–seller, not part of a fraudulent scheme | Buyer–seller instruction applies to conspiracies; scheme-to-defraud does not require agreement element | Instruction properly refused: buyer–seller defense negates conspiracy but not scheme-to-defraud element of wire fraud |
| Restitution amount and victim identification | Restitution methodology and victim ID (Long Beach Mortgage) were inaccurate for some properties | PSR used appropriate actual-loss method; Walker failed to object or present contrary evidence | Restitution affirmed: court permissibly adopted PSR; plain-error review fails because Walker presented no contradictory evidence |
| District court’s refusal to subpoena South Holland PD property | (Related to Brady/due process) Court erred by not compelling production | Defense withdrew request for production; sought only location; subpoena unnecessary | No due-process violation or error; defense counsel strategically withdrew production request; claim waived |
Key Cases Cited
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (failure to disclose favorable, material evidence violates due process)
- United States v. Wilson, 237 F.3d 827 (7th Cir. 2001) (Brady standard and review of Brady claims)
- United States v. Dimas, 3 F.3d 1015 (7th Cir. 1993) (evidence not "suppressed" if defendant knew of and could obtain it with diligence)
- United States v. Choiniere, 517 F.3d 967 (7th Cir. 2008) (standard for reviewing refusal to give theory-of-defense jury instructions)
- United States v. Turner, 551 F.3d 657 (7th Cir. 2008) (elements of wire fraud and distinction between conspiracy and scheme-to-defraud)
- United States v. Berkowitz, 732 F.3d 850 (7th Cir. 2013) (plain-error review for unpreserved restitution objections; district may adopt PSR loss figures)
- United States v. Green, 648 F.3d 569 (7th Cir. 2011) (method for calculating loss in mortgage-fraud cases)
- United States v. Taylor, 72 F.3d 533 (7th Cir. 1995) (district court may rely on PSR when defendant does not challenge accuracy)
- United States v. Newman, 144 F.3d 531 (7th Cir. 1998) (purpose of MVRA to make victims whole)