United States v. Jannette Faria
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 10436
| 7th Cir. | 2017Background
- Jackson and Faria were charged in a scheme to defraud Illinois CCAP by submitting false applications, redeterminations, and monthly reports for subsidies to three daycares (St. Peters, Jubilee, ABC Cicero) from 2002–2011.
- Subsidies were funded by CCAP and paid directly to providers; applicants reported employment, income, hours, and attendance to obtain subsidies.
- Jackson and others allegedly billed for non-attendance, inflated attendance, and for services not provided, resulting in over $2.28 million paid to Jackson’s daycares.
- Evidence showed Jackson used aliases (e.g., Henry Walker, Chris, Keith) to submit forged employment letters, reports, and signatures on AFC paperwork.
- St. Peters involved forged documents and inflated attendance to maximize reimbursements; Jubilee and ABC Cicero likewise involved falsified records and continued billing after closures.
- Jackson’s control over daycares and related bank accounts was shown, along with witness testimony about falsified documentation and post-closure billing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the evidence supports mail/wire fraud convictions | Jackson intended to defraud the State; aliases and forged documents show scheme and intent. | Insufficient evidentiary proof of intent to defraud; gaps in causal connection to mail/wires. | Evidence sufficient; convictions affirmed. |
| Whether Faria was prejudiced by a joint trial | Joint trial could prejudice co-defendant by conflating evidence. | Joint trial deprived Faria of fair trial due to Jackson's conduct. | No reversible prejudice; joint trial did not violate fairness. |
| Whether the redacted indictment given to the jury was improper | Indictment linking to multiple daycares could prejudice Faria. | Redaction and limiting instructions were insufficiently protective. | No abuse of discretion; appropriate limiting instructions and redaction used. |
| Whether Faria's sentence was substantively unreasonable | Below-guidelines sentence may be inadequate given scope of fraud. | Court failed to properly weigh mitigating factors. | Sentence substantively reasonable; district court adequately justified. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Curtis, 324 F.3d 501 (7th Cir. 2003) (rigorous standard for sufficiency challenges; view evidence in light favoring prosecution)
- United States v. Durham, 645 F.3d 883 (7th Cir. 2011) (elements of mail/wire fraud; scheme to defraud; intent; use of mail or wires)
- United States v. Daniel, 749 F.3d 608 (7th Cir. 2014) (reaffirmed elements for mail/wire fraud in Seventh Circuit)
- Zafiro v. United States, 506 U.S. 534 (U.S. 1993) (preferentially supports joint-trial rationale when no substantial risk of prejudice)
- United States v. Oglesby, 764 F.2d 1273 (7th Cir. 1985) (test for prejudice in joint trials and pro se defendants; limiting instructions)
- United States v. Watts, 29 F.3d 287 (7th Cir. 1994) (indictment as evidence; proper limiting instructions reduce risk of prejudice)
- United States v. Mannie, 509 F.3d 851 (7th Cir. 2007) (prejudice in trial conduct; distinguishes exceptional disruption from ordinary closing remarks)
- United States v. Abebe, 651 F.3d 653 (7th Cir. 2011) (abuse-of-discretion standard for appellate review of sentencing decisions)
- United States v. Reibel, 688 F.3d 868 (7th Cir. 2012) (weight given to mitigating factors in sentencing; district court’s broad discretion)