United States v. Mandell
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 15095
| 7th Cir. | 2016Background
- Steven Mandell (formerly Manning) conspired to kidnap, extort, and murder a businessman (Campbell); FBI-authorized hidden cameras were installed at the rented location (“Club Med”).
- Recordings from the hidden cameras showed Mandell and Gary Engel discussing the kidnapping/extortion/murder in graphic detail; cameras also identified Engel as the previously unidentified accomplice.
- The FBI obtained a wiretap/order under 18 U.S.C. §§ 2516, 2518 after an affidavit by SA Tipton stating traditional methods had failed and video was needed to identify the accomplice and gather proof.
- Mandell was convicted of conspiracy to kidnap, conspiracy and attempt to extort, possessing a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence (924(c)), and unlawful possession as a felon (922(g)); acquitted on the separate Quaranta murder charge.
- Mandell moved to suppress the video evidence (arguing the wiretap application omitted material facts showing the FBI already knew Engel was the accomplice) and later sought a new trial claiming undisclosed exculpatory evidence about the Ruger firearm’s source.
- The district court denied suppression and the new-trial motion; the Seventh Circuit affirmed, finding omissions were immaterial and any information about the gun’s provenance would not have changed the verdict.
Issues
| Issue | Mandell's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of wiretap authorization / necessity requirement | FBI omitted material facts tying Engel to Mandell; FBI already knew Engel was accomplice so must have named him and wiretap unnecessary | Connections to Engel were circumstantial/hindsight and did not show he was the Campbell accomplice; wiretap still necessary to identify roles and obtain trial-proof | Affirmed: application met statutory requirements; necessity satisfied and judge did not clearly err |
| Entitlement to Franks evidentiary hearing (alleged reckless omission) | Omissions of connections between Mandell and Engel warranted a hearing because order procured by reckless omission | Omissions were not material; even if known, wiretap still justifiable to obtain evidence beyond indictment-level proof | Affirmed: no substantial preliminary showing; denial of hearing not clear error |
| Brady/Giglio claim re: undisclosed IRS interview reports about "Individual A" and gun provenance | Late-produced reports would show gun tied to third parties (and possibly Michael), undermining possession/planting theory | Reports unrelated or redacted; provenance irrelevant because videos show Mandell aware of and handling the Ruger in furtherance of the plot | Affirmed: evidence not material; no reasonable probability of different outcome |
| Sufficiency of firearm evidence for 922(g)/924(c) convictions | (Implicit) If gun planted by Michael or trace shows different owner, possession element undermined | Video shows Mandell discussing, observing, and approving loading/use of the Ruger; ownership provenance irrelevant to possession in furtherance | Affirmed: overwhelming evidence of possession and use in furtherance of crime |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. McMurtrey, 704 F.3d 502 (7th Cir.) (Franks-standard for omissions to invalidate wiretap order)
- United States v. Fudge, 325 F.3d 910 (7th Cir.) (wiretap identity and necessity standards)
- United States v. McLee, 436 F.3d 751 (7th Cir.) (practical/commonsense review of necessity requirement)
- United States v. Farmer, 924 F.2d 647 (7th Cir.) (wiretap necessity where identifying co-conspirators was needed)
- United States v. Plescia, 48 F.3d 1452 (7th Cir.) (use of interceptions to ascertain roles in conspiracy)
- United States v. Campos, 541 F.3d 735 (7th Cir.) (wiretap use to gather trial-level proof beyond indictment)
- Whitlock v. Brown, 596 F.3d 406 (7th Cir.) (Franks preliminary-showing standard)
- United States v. Carmel, 548 F.3d 571 (7th Cir.) (Franks and materiality analysis)
- United States v. Mota, 685 F.3d 644 (7th Cir.) (Brady materiality / reasonable probability standard)
- United States v. Smith, 674 F.3d 722 (7th Cir.) (abuse-of-discretion review for new-trial Brady claims)
- Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (U.S. 1978) (prejudice/hearing requirement where affidavit contains deliberate or reckless falsehoods)