United States v. Lee Tevis
593 F. App'x 473
6th Cir.2014Background
- Lee Tevis, a builder, constructed an expanded house for James Tate (bank president). Tate arranged bank loans to Tevis’s entities using false borrower identities and social-security numbers, including a minor’s SSN for an LLC "Two Amigos."
- Tate authorized multiple unsecured and secured loans to entities tied to Tevis; proceeds were funneled to Tevis and used to finish (but not complete) the house. Tate later resigned after the Bank discovered the loans. The Bank sued civilly and settled with all defendants except Tate.
- Criminal charges: Tevis was tried on bank fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1344), aggravated identity theft (18 U.S.C. § 1028A), aiding and abetting false statements to a bank (18 U.S.C. § 1014), and aiding and abetting embezzlement (18 U.S.C. § 656). Tate pled guilty; Martinez and others testified at trial.
- Trial evidence showed Tevis recruited Martinez (an undocumented worker) to create Two Amigos, supplied a child’s SSN to Tate for loan applications, and received substantial loan proceeds. Jury acquitted on one count but convicted on the remaining counts.
- Tevis appealed, challenging evidentiary exclusions (insurance policy and settlement agreement), sufficiency of evidence, supplemental jury instructions, and the district court’s Allen charge/mistrial denial. The Sixth Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Tevis’s Argument | Government’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Exclusion of bank insurance policy/impeachment | Policy should be admitted to show Davis/Bank motive to convict and to impeach Davis | Policy irrelevant and marginal impeachment value; Davis had no financial stake | Court did not abuse discretion in excluding policy for impeachment and as evidence |
| Exclusion of civil settlement agreement (Rule 408) | Settlement shows Bank management doubted Tevis’s culpability; thus admissible | Settlement barred by Rule 408 because it would imply invalidity of the compromised civil claim | Exclusion proper under Rule 408; settlement barred as proof of claim validity |
| Sufficiency of evidence for fraud/related counts | Insufficient proof Tevis knowingly participated or "used" JM’s SSN; Tate had approval for loans | Testimony and documents showed Tevis recruited Martinez, provided SSN, gave SSN to Tate, and received loan proceeds | Viewing evidence favorably to prosecution, convictions on bank fraud, §1014 aiding and abetting, §656 aiding and abetting, and §1028A aggravated identity theft were supported |
| Jury instructions / Allen charge and supplemental instructions | Supplemental instructions and Allen charge misled jury; mistrial warranted | Supplemental instruction clarified elements; Allen charge appropriate after limited deliberation | Supplemental instruction proper (required elements reiterated); Allen charge not an abuse—mistrial denial affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Abboud, 438 F.3d 554 (6th Cir.) (standard for bank fraud elements)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (constitutional sufficiency-of-the-evidence standard)
- United States v. Warshak, 631 F.3d 266 (6th Cir.) (bank’s loss not required to prove bank fraud)
- United States v. Morales, 687 F.3d 697 (6th Cir.) (abuse-of-discretion review for evidentiary rulings)
- United States v. Howard, 621 F.3d 433 (6th Cir.) (limits on impeachment evidence)
- United States v. Bronzino, 598 F.3d 276 (6th Cir.) (aiding-and-abetting §1014 requirements)
- United States v. Woods, 877 F.2d 477 (6th Cir.) (elements for bank officer embezzlement under §656)
- United States v. Roach, 502 F.3d 425 (6th Cir.) (Allen-charge guidance)