United States v. Hubert Rotteveel
703 F. App'x 518
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Hubert Rotteveel was convicted of mail fraud affecting a financial institution (18 U.S.C. § 1341) for a scheme to obtain mortgages on investment properties by making fraudulent statements to lenders.
- He misrepresented property values, borrower income/assets, and induced loans that exceeded 100% of property value.
- A recorded deed was mailed from the county recorder to the lending bank; the government argued this mailing was essential to the scheme because it confirmed the bank’s security interest.
- At trial, loan professionals testified that Rotteveel’s statements were capable of influencing the bank and that the bank would not have made the loans if it had known the true facts.
- The jury convicted; Rotteveel appealed challenging sufficiency of the evidence, the district court’s handling of jury questions, denial of participation in responding to jury questions, and alleged coercive post-verdict instruction practices.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Government) | Defendant's Argument (Rotteveel) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence on materiality and effect on a financial institution | Statements were objectively material and capable of influencing the bank; mailings were incident to the scheme | Insufficient evidence that statements were material, affected the bank, or that mailing was essential | Affirmed: evidence sufficient; materiality and effect proven objectively; deed mailing was essential |
| Requirement of bank testimony on materiality | Not required; objective test and testimony from loan professionals sufficed | Argued bank testimony required to show materiality | Rejected: no requirement of specific bank testimony |
| Jury questions and district court responses | Court appropriately limited response to avoid usurping jury fact-finding | Court’s answers were inadequate and denied Rotteveel opportunity to propose wording | Affirmed: no abuse of discretion; defendant and counsel participated and had opportunity; any error harmless |
| Alleged coercion during deliberations | Court properly inquired and gave time; jurors requested additional deliberation time | Jury coercively pushed to continue deliberating when deadlocked | Affirmed: no coercion; court properly handled inquiry and allowed additional time |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Bennett, 621 F.3d 1131 (9th Cir.) (materiality and mail-wrong elements guidance)
- United States v. Peterson, 538 F.3d 1064 (9th Cir.) (no requirement of direct victim testimony on materiality)
- United States v. Jenkins, 633 F.3d 788 (9th Cir.) (statements need not actually influence recipients to be material)
- United States v. Blixt, 548 F.3d 882 (9th Cir.) (misrepresentation may be material without inducing actual reliance)
- United States v. Stargell, 738 F.3d 1018 (9th Cir.) (government need show increased risk of loss, not actual loss)
- Schmuck v. United States, 489 U.S. 705 (U.S.) (mailing incident to an essential part of scheme satisfies mail fraud mailing element)
- United States v. Verduzco, 373 F.3d 1022 (9th Cir.) (district court discretion in answering jury questions)
- United States v. Walker, 575 F.2d 209 (9th Cir.) (limits on court explaining evidence to jury)
- Frantz v. Hazey, 533 F.3d 724 (9th Cir.) (defendant’s presence and participation in courtroom proceedings affects due process claim)
- United States v. Throckmorton, 87 F.3d 1069 (9th Cir.) (defendant’s opportunity to participate in trial communications)
- United States v. Frazin, 780 F.2d 1451 (9th Cir.) (harmless error analysis)
- Jiminez v. Myers, 40 F.3d 976 (9th Cir.) (coercion standard for jury deliberation)
- Bollenbach v. United States, 326 U.S. 607 (U.S.) (judge’s duty to clarify jury questions and give assistive instruction)