United States v. Joanne Tragas
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 17628
| 6th Cir. | 2013Background
- Defendant Joanne Tragas acted as a middleman for overseas suppliers of stolen card data and sold it to U.S. conspirators who encoded it onto cards.
- Conspirators used cloned cards to purchase goods, including electronics and gift cards, generating substantial financial losses (~$2.18 million).
- Hunters in Detroit interacted with Tragas via ICQ/chat; transcripts of those conversations were admitted and read aloud at trial by the prosecutor and a Secret Service agent.
- Defendant was charged by superseding indictment with conspiracy to commit access device fraud, multiple Travel Act counts, bank fraud, and wire fraud; she was convicted on all counts.
- District court sentenced her to 300 months; on appeal she challenged evidentiary readings, unanimity instructions, Travel Act sufficiency, Vienna Convention rights, and ex post facto resentencing issues, but the panel affirmed conviction and vacated/remanded for resentencing due to Guideline error.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Unanimity on conspiracy object | Tragas argues lack of unanimity on which §1029(a)(1)–(5) offense | Court failed to require unanimous agreement on specific object | Plain error not shown; conspiracy to commit at least one §1029(a) offense established |
| Reading transcripts aloud | Prosecutor’s reading of transcripts prejudiced the defense | Reading constituted impermissible theater or vouching | No improper conduct; proper transcripts admitted and readings did not prejudice |
| Travel Act sufficiency | Evidence insufficient to show knowledge of interstate travel by Hunter | General awareness of interstate travel suffices; knowledge of each travel instance not required | Sufficient evidence for Travel Act convictions; jury could infer awareness and intent |
| Vienna Convention rights | Defendant’s consular rights violated | Vienna rights extend to her | Vienna Convention rights not enforceable in this panel under Emuegbunam |
| Ex Post Facto sentencing enhancement | Guidelines enhancement based on post-2009 interpretation | Application of amended victim definition violated Ex Post Facto | Plain error; remanded for de novo resentencing using correct guideline version |
Key Cases Cited
- Bank of Nova Scotia v. United States, 487 U.S. 250 (Supreme Court 1988) (reading aloud from transcripts not inherently prejudicial when properly admitted)
- Chambers v. United States, 441 F.3d 438 (Sixth Cir. 2006) (no unfair prejudice from reading portions of a diary/transcript to jury)
- Mooneyham, 473 F.3d 280 (Sixth Cir. 2007) (co-conspirator statements non-testimonial, admissible under hearsay rules)
- Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1 (Supreme Court 1999) (non‑structural error for missing jury element instruction; harmless error rules apply)
- Peugh v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2072 (S. Ct. 2013) (Ex Post Facto evaluation of Guidelines disparities post-conduct)
- Welch v. United States, 689 F.3d 529 (Sixth Cir. 2012) (Guideline range change post-offense can violate Ex Post Facto)
- Davis v. United States, 397 F.3d 340 (Sixth Cir. 2005) (plain-error review for sentencing issues)