926 F.3d 361
7th Cir.2019Background
- John Buncich, elected Lake County Sheriff (took office Jan. 1, 2011), controlled assignment of towing territories and directed subordinates to sell campaign fundraiser tickets to tow operators.
- Tow operators (notably Willie Szarmach/CSA and Scott Jurgensen/Samson) paid cash and checks for campaign tickets; some payments were allegedly quid pro quo for towing territory and assignments.
- FBI used a confidential informant and recorded/observed multiple cash handoffs; agents recovered large bundles and money bands in searches.
- Indictment charged five counts of wire fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1343/§ 1346, Counts I–V) tied to specific wire transfers and one count of bribery/§ 666(a)(1)(B) (Count VI).
- At trial the jury convicted Buncich on all six counts; on appeal he challenged sufficiency of evidence for several wire‐fraud counts and the admission of Exhibit 49.2 (a chart of $58,100 cash deposits) and related IRS testimony.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for wire fraud Counts I–III (three payroll wire transfers) | Government: transfers were part of scheme to deprive county of honest services. | Buncich: government failed to tie those specific transfers to bribery/kickback scheme. | Reversed — evidence for Counts I–III was insufficient. |
| Sufficiency of evidence for wire fraud Counts IV–V (April 8 and Oct. 21, 2014 checks) | Government: checks were quid pro quo payments exchanged for official acts (territory maintained/expanded). | Buncich: payments were ordinary campaign contributions, not bribes. | Affirmed — jury reasonably found quid pro quo bribery for Counts IV–V. |
| Admissibility of Exhibit 49.2 and Agent Hatagan’s testimony (unexplained cash deposits) under Rule 404(b)/403 | Government: chart rebuts Buncich’s testimony about handling of payments and shows unexplained wealth consistent with criminal activity. | Buncich: chart and agent testimony were propensity evidence, prejudicial, and unrelated to charged amounts. | Error to admit (probative value outweighed by prejudice for deposits beyond charged $26,000), but admission was harmless in light of overwhelming other evidence. |
| Bribery conviction (Count VI) | Government: evidence showed deprivation of county (franchise fees) and official acts in exchange for payments. | Buncich: challenges to sufficiency and evidentiary rulings. | Affirmed — jury verdict on Count VI sustained. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Durham, 645 F.3d 883 (standard for reversing convictions)
- United States v. Sheneman, 682 F.3d 623 (elements of wire fraud)
- United States v. Green, 648 F.3d 569 (wire fraud elements)
- United States v. Hawkins, 777 F.3d 880 (honest-services fraud limited to bribery/kickbacks)
- United States v. Smith, 816 F.3d 479 (exchange of official act for money unlawful regardless of cash use)
- United States v. Gomez, 763 F.3d 845 (Rule 404(b) admissibility and propensity-free relevance)
- United States v. Brewer, 915 F.3d 408 (Rule 403 balancing for other-act evidence)
- United States v. Norweathers, 895 F.3d 485 (abuse-of-discretion review for 404(b))
- United States v. Schmitt, 770 F.3d 524 (404(b) principles)
- United States v. Cardena, 842 F.3d 959 (standards for unexplained-wealth evidence)
- United States v. Hogan, 886 F.2d 1497 (unexplained cash probative in drug cases)
- United States v. Penny, 60 F.3d 1257 (unexplained-wealth context)
- United States v. Harris, 536 F.3d 798 (cash deposits as indicia of criminal activity)
- United States v. Stewart, 902 F.3d 664 (harmless-error test for improper evidence)
- United States v. Lawson, 810 F.3d 1032 (deference to jury credibility findings)