United States v. LaPlante
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 9452
1st Cir.2013Background
- LaPlante ran JRL Funding Group, a financing and factoring business, until January 2003 when the company faltered and financing dried up.
- From January 2003 to February 2007 she obtained loans from various lenders, promising the funds would be used for factoring though factoring activity had ceased.
- Each loan was documented as for a factoring business and LaPlante guaranteed repayment with specific timelines and monthly statements of account.
- The government presented evidence that LaPlante lied about the viability of her business and about ongoing factoring to obtain loans, while using new funds to repay existing debts.
- LaPlante was charged with mail fraud for devising a scheme to defraud and to obtain money by false pretenses, with a five-day trial resulting in a conviction.
- On appeal, LaPlante challenged jury instructions and claimed ineffective assistance of counsel; the court upheld the conviction and rejected both arguments.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the jury instructions properly addressed a scheme to defraud. | LaPlante argues instruction should have focused on a scheme to obtain money by false pretenses. | LaPlante contends district court erred by not instructing on the specific 'scheme to obtain' elements tied to false statements. | No error; instructions adequately covered scheme to defraud. |
| Whether a unanimity instruction was required on which false statement was used. | LaPlante contends jury needed unanimity on the particular false statement alleged. | LaPlante argues lack of unanimity on means should be error. | No unanimity instruction required; general verdict on elements sufficed. |
| Whether counsel's handling of the default-judgment evidence amounted to ineffective assistance. | LaPlante claims trial counsel was deficient for introducing the default judgment to the jury. | The government argues the record is insufficient to show prejudice; claims are evaluated under Strickland. | No prejudice shown; overwhelming evidence supported conviction regardless of counsel's strategy. |
Key Cases Cited
- Durland v. United States, 161 U.S. 306 (Supreme Court 1896) (definition of 'scheme to defraud' reaches false representations and promises)
- McNally v. United States, 483 U.S. 350 (Supreme Court 1987) (amendment clarifies mail fraud reaches false or fraudulent pretenses as to future matters)
- Serrano v. United States, 870 F.2d 1 (1st Cir. 1989) (conviction proof for mail fraud may rely on a scheme devised to defraud and use of the mails)
- Brandon v. United States, 17 F.3d 409 (1st Cir. 1994) (definitions of 'scheme' and 'artifice' in the mail fraud context)
- Lee v. United States, 317 F.3d 26 (1st Cir. 2003) (unanimity concerns for general verdicts on elements vs. means)
- Fontana v. United States, 948 F.2d 796 (1st Cir. 1991) (discusses disjunctive prongs of §1344 and related requirements)
- Ofray-Campos v. United States, 534 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2008) (ineffective-assistance standards and need for developed record on appeal)
- Natanel v. United States, 938 F.2d 302 (1st Cir. 1991) (special consideration allowing direct-appeal review of ineffective assistance claims)
- United States v. Valerio, 676 F.3d 237 (1st Cir. 2012) (framework for evaluating ineffective assistance claims on appeal)