United States v. Marc Engelmann
701 F.3d 874
8th Cir.2012Background
- Engelmann was convicted by a jury of conspiracy to commit bank and wire fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 371, bank fraud under 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 1344, and wire fraud under 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 1343, based on dual pricing schemes in nine real estate transactions.
- Engelmann defended that he lacked the requisite intent to defraud because he believed lenders knew about the dual pricing scheme.
- During trial, a sequestration order barred certain witnesses from hearing others’ testimony; two FBI agents testified about Engelmann’s asserted statements, which Engelmann claimed were misrepresented by the Government.
- After verdict, a trial observer reported that an in-court recess involved agents discussing testimony with one another, prompting Engelmann to move for a new trial on sequestration grounds.
- The district court denied Engelmann’s new-trial motion, declined to hold an evidentiary hearing, and imposed restitution totaling $392,937.73.
- The appellate court vacated the denial on the sequestration issue, remanding to hold an evidentiary hearing, make supplemental findings, and reconsider the motion for a new trial, while retaining jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the district court abuse its discretion by denying an evidentiary hearing on sequestration? | Engelmann argues the alleged post-testimony conversation violated Rule 615 and prejudice him. | United States contends the record lacks sufficient evidence of a violation or prejudice and the court acted within discretion. | Yes; abuse of discretion requiring remand for an evidentiary hearing. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Collins, 340 F.3d 672 (8th Cir. 2003) (abuse-of-discretion standard for sequestration decisions)
- United States v. Sykes, 977 F.2d 1242 (8th Cir. 1992) (case-agent presence allowed at counsel table despite sequestration)
- United States v. Smith, 578 F.2d 1227 (8th Cir. 1978) (sequestration limitations do not bar notes relayed to witnesses)
- United States v. Vallie, 284 F.3d 917 (8th Cir. 2002) (sequestration violations or prejudice evals may hinge on absence/presence of tailored testimony)
- United States v. Kindle, 925 F.2d 272 (8th Cir. 1991) (sequestration orders can be narrow; contact with witnesses considered)