United States v. Luke Brugnara
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 8349
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Luke Brugnara, a former real-estate businessman, arranged to receive multimillion-dollar artworks from dealer Rose Long by representing he would buy them and display them in a museum he controlled; he lacked funds and no museum existed.
- Long shipped five crates; Brugnara refused deposits and shipping payment, delayed inspection, later claimed the works were gifts, and one statue (Degas Little Dancer) went missing.
- FBI recovered four unopened crates; Brugnara was detained, escaped during a courthouse furlough, was recaptured, and additional charges were filed.
- After counsel withdrew, Brugnara elected to proceed pro se following a Faretta hearing; his courtroom conduct was disruptive and led to numerous summary contempt citations totaling 471 days.
- A jury convicted him of wire fraud, mail fraud, false declaration, escape, and contempt; post-trial motions (including a new-trial motion based on after-acquired art valuations and claims about jury bias and loss of legal materials) and a competency claim were denied; he was sentenced to 84 months.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (U.S.) | Defendant's Argument (Brugnara) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether newly discovered post-trial art valuations warranted a new trial | Court should deny new trial because defendant was not diligent in obtaining valuations pre-trial | Valuations show art was worth far less and are newly discovered material evidence warranting a new trial | Denied: defendant lacked diligence (failed to use CJA procedures or pursue valuations during trial) |
| Sufficiency of evidence for wire/mail fraud | Evidence showed scheme to obtain art by false representations and intent to defraud (use of mail/wires established) | Argued Long may have been fraudulent and disappearance was conversion, not fraud | Affirmed: jury could infer scheme and specific intent from misrepresentations and conduct |
| Sufficiency of evidence for false declaration before court | Statement about Sotheby’s was made in prior proceedings and could influence the decision; materiality met | Claimed insufficient proof that statement was material to prior proceeding | Affirmed: materiality could be inferred from context and judge’s follow-up; conviction sustainable |
| Whether pro se status should have been terminated / competency hearing required | Faretta allows discretion; no sua sponte competency hearing required absent reasonable doubt; judge properly found competence | Argued court should have terminated self-representation (Faretta/Edwards) and held competency hearing sua sponte | Denied: Faretta does not mandate termination; Edwards not triggered—no severe mental illness shown; no reasonable doubt warranting competency hearing |
| Whether prison staff’s disorganization of legal materials denied Sixth Amendment access | No constitutional denial shown—materials were not withheld; defendant refused offered continuance to reorganize | Claimed loss/disorganization irreparably prejudiced his defense | Denied: no evidence of denied or unreasonable access or prejudice |
| Whether juror dishonesty during voir dire required new trial | Court: defendant waived claim regarding juror I.J.; for juror C.D., even if she lied, honest answer would not have provided a valid cause challenge | Argued jurors withheld criminal history, tainting impartiality | Denied: I.J. issue waived; C.D. failed McDonough showing because honest answer wouldn’t necessarily permit challenge for cause |
Key Cases Cited
- Hinkson v. United States, 585 F.3d 1247 (9th Cir.) (standard for new trial based on newly discovered evidence)
- Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975) (right to self-representation and trial judge discretion to terminate)
- Indiana v. Edwards, 554 U.S. 164 (2008) (state may require counsel for defendants incompetent to represent themselves)
- McDonough Power Equip., Inc. v. Greenwood, 464 U.S. 548 (1984) (test for juror dishonesty on voir dire and cause for new trial)
- Nevils v. United States, 598 F.3d 1158 (9th Cir.) (Jackson standard for sufficiency of evidence review)
- Dreyer v. United States, 705 F.3d 951 (9th Cir.) (standard for when a judge must sua sponte order competency hearing)
- Jinian v. United States, 725 F.3d 954 (9th Cir.) (elements of wire fraud)
- Rogers v. United States, 321 F.3d 1226 (9th Cir.) (mail fraud intent and scheme analysis)