1:21-cr-00088
S.D. OhioMay 10, 2022Background:
- Grand jury returned a 17-count indictment charging Jeremy Skeens with wire fraud and money laundering arising from two alleged investment schemes involving his landscaping business, Landcorp.
- Victim 1 (Aug–Nov 2018) allegedly invested $130,000; funds moved from Landcorp’s account into Skeens’s personal account and then into casino cashier checks in Detroit for gambling/personal use.
- Victim 2 (Oct 2020–Jan 2021) allegedly invested $1,070,000; portions (~$690,000) were wired to a Tampa casino and used for gambling/personal expenses.
- Skeens moved to sever the counts (Doc. 22); the government opposed (Doc. 23). The central legal question was whether the counts were properly joined under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 8(a).
- The court concluded the counts involved the same statutory offenses, similar modus operandi (solicited investments then laundered through casinos), and alleged a common scheme using the business as the investment vehicle.
- Court denied the motion to sever, emphasizing joinder favors judicial economy and noting possible evidentiary overlap.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counts are properly joined under Fed. R. Crim. P. 8(a) | Counts are of the same or similar character and constitute a common plan/scheme—virtually identical conduct separated only by date | Counts arise from distinct incidents (different victims, times, casinos); severance required to avoid prejudice and separate trials | Denied: Joinder proper—offenses substantially similar and allege a common scheme; judicial economy favors keeping counts together |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Chavis, 296 F.3d 450 (6th Cir. 2002) (joinder construed in favor of joining counts; indictment must allege a common thread connecting offenses)
- United States v. Hatcher, 680 F.2d 438 (6th Cir. 1982) (if Rule 8(a) not satisfied, district court lacks discretion to deny severance)
- United States v. Hersch, 297 F.3d 1233 (11th Cir. 2002) (offenses must be substantially similar in character to be joined as "same or similar")
- United States v. Jawara, 474 F.3d 565 (9th Cir. 2007) (factors for similarity include elements, temporal proximity, evidentiary overlap, location, modus operandi, and victims)
- United States v. Randazzo, 80 F.3d 623 (1st Cir. 1996) (offenses grow out of related transactions may be joined as part of a common plan or scheme)