United States v. Louis Javell
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 18377
7th Cir.2012Background
- Undercover FBI mortgage-fraud investigation targets real estate professionals who prepare false loan applications or documents.
- CI revealed Everett Property control to Skaff; Skaff referred him to Javell/Bell Capital; Hussein (undercover agent) planned to purchase with a fraudulent identity (Adham).
- Javell’s loan processor Arroyo helped assemble a fraudulent loan in Adham’s name; July 25, 2007 Bell Capital meeting discussed back-dating or adding Adham to a seasoned bank account; scheme approved with back-dated funds.
- August 1, 2007: loan approved for $150,000; CI and UC closed on Everett Property; Javell received and deposited $5,234 into Bell Capital’s account.
- March 2009: Javell and Arroyo indicted; Arroyo waived Miranda rights and admitted prior fraudulent documents; government sought to admit Arroyo’s post-arrest statements via Agent Secor (Bruton issue).
- Trial: Bruton hearing redacted statements; Bruton statement not published, but Agent Secor testimony aligned with redactions; jury found Javell and Arroyo guilty.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bruton effect of Arroyo statements on Javell | Javell: Bruton violated Confrontation Clause by admitting Arroyo’s post-arrest statements. | State: Redactions and limiting instructions prevent Bruton violation. | Bruton claim rejected; no Confrontation Clause violation. |
| Jury instruction on Arroyo statements | Javell: Instructions improperly allowed imputing Arroyo’s statements to Javell. | No plain error; instructions viewed as a whole were not misleading. | No plain error; jury instruction issue rejected. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 (U.S. 1968) (confrontation clause; non-testifying co-defendant statements must be redacted)
- Richardson v. Marsh, 481 U.S. 200 (U.S. 1987) (redacted co-defendant confession admissible with limiting instruction)
- Gray v. Maryland, 523 U.S. 185 (U.S. 1998) (redactions must avoid facially incriminating references to defendant)
- United States v. Green, 648 F.3d 569 (7th Cir. 2011) (co-defendant confession redacted; context matters)
- Delli Paoli v. United States, 352 U.S. 232 (U.S. 1957) (co-defendant hearsay admissible with limiting instructions)