United States v. Marc Engelmann
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 15448
| 8th Cir. | 2013Background
- Engelmann, a real estate attorney, was convicted of conspiracy to commit bank and wire fraud, bank fraud, and wire fraud based on a dual-price mortgage scheme.
- District court sentenced him to 36 months and ordered restitution totaling $392,937.73 to three lenders.
- This court issued a limited remand for an evidentiary hearing on a witness-sequestration issue and to reconsider a motion for a new trial.
- During trial, Engelmann requested a good-faith defense instruction; the district court gave a concise version.
- After verdict, a trial observer and agents’ conduct raised concerns about sequestration and potential prejudice, leading to remand for an evidentiary hearing.
- On remand, the district court found no prejudice from sequestration violations and denied the new trial, which this court affirms on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the good-faith instruction was adequate | Engelmann urged a more detailed instruction | United States contends the instruction adequately covered the law | No abuse; instruction adequate in context |
| Whether the witness sequestration violations warrant a new trial | Violations occurred and prejudiced Engelmann | Violations were not prejudicial | No abuse of discretion; no new trial required; evidentiary hearing important for integrity |
| Whether the loss amount supporting an increased base offense level was properly calculated | Loss should reflect market realities of securitization | Use reasonable foreseeability and method for calculating actual loss | Not clearly erroneous; method supported by guidelines and precedent |
| Whether restitution awards under MVRA were proper and supported by proof of loss | Victims properly identified; amounts supported by evidence | Amounts not sufficiently proven; victims may be improperly classified | Restitution sustained; loss amounts supported by evidence; victims properly identified |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Whitehill, 532 F.3d 746 (8th Cir. 2008) (jury instructions presumed adequate when whole record supports them)
- United States v. Ammons, 464 F.2d 414 (8th Cir. 1972) (defense theory instruction need not cover every possible inference)
- United States v. Casperson, 773 F.2d 216 (8th Cir. 1985) (timely requested and properly supported defense instruction may be given)
- United States v. Beckman, 222 F.3d 512 (8th Cir. 2000) (supplemental instructions may be used in response to jury requests)
- United States v. Stewart, 878 F.2d 256 (8th Cir. 1989) (Rule 615 allows contact with witnesses by government officials)
- United States v. Camacho, 555 F.3d 695 (8th Cir. 2009) (review of sequestration rulings for prejudice requires showing prejudice)
- Holthaus v. United States, 486 F.3d 451 (8th Cir. 2007) (reviewing credibility determinations on appeal)
- United States v. Parish, 565 F.3d 528 (8th Cir. 2009) (loss under USSG 2B1.1 should be reasonably foreseeable)
- United States v. McKanry, 628 F.3d 1010 (8th Cir. 2011) (reasonableness standard for loss calculation)
- United States v. Smiley, 553 F.3d 1137 (8th Cir. 2009) (loss determinations may rely on agent testimony)
- Chalupnik v. United States, 514 F.3d 748 (8th Cir. 2008) (loss measure in fraud cases)
- Statman, 604 F.3d 529 (8th Cir. 2010) (MVRA restitution burden and proof standard)