United States v. Michael DeMarco
784 F.3d 388
| 7th Cir. | 2015Background
- DeMarco, a JPMorgan Chase bank branch manager, exploited his role to target an elderly customer, Suarez, to engineer a HELOC loan using Suarez’s property.
- DeMarco obtained a $250,000 HELOC by submitting applications and arranging a closing where Suarez’s funds would go to DeMarco’s accounts.
- DeMarco controlled the HELOC proceeds, diverted funds to a joint account listing DeMarco’s address, and then withdrew most of the money for personal use.
- Suarez later discovered irregularities; FBI Agent McCune investigated, leading to DeMarco’s indictment for wire fraud in May 2012.
- At trial, Suarez, Agent McCune, and Patel testified; DeMarco admitted lying to Suarez to some extent; the PSR recommended a two-level enhancement for sophisticated means but not for abuse of trust; the district court applied both enhancements and sentenced DeMarco to 48 months; DeMarco appealed conviction and sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Impeachment evidence admissibility | DeMarco (plaintiff) contends district court erred by barring 608(b) impeachment of Suarez | State argues extrinsic evidence allowed under 613(b) for prior inconsistent statements | Harmless error; conviction affirmed. |
| Admission of redacted HELOC data | DeMarco claims Rule 16(a)(1)(E)(i) violation for use of redacted info | Government could rebut with unredacted data; DeMarco failed to request earlier | Not reversible; defense had opportunity to obtain unredacted copy but did not request; ruling upheld. |
| Sufficiency of abuse of trust enhancement | DeMarco argues no abuse of trust to justify §3B1.3 | DeMarco asserts lack of elevated trust relationship | Two-level enhancement proper. |
| Sufficiency of sophisticated means enhancement | DeMarco contends no sophisticated means beyond garden-variety fraud | Scheme involved multiple banks, control of accounts, and concealment | Two-level enhancement proper. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Boros, 668 F.3d 901 (7th Cir. 2012) (harmless error analysis under Rule 52(a))
- United States v. McGee, 408 F.3d 966 (7th Cir. 2005) (extrinsic evidence for impeachment under Rule 613(b) and bias/contradiction)
- United States v. Johnson, 956 F.2d 460 (7th Cir. 1992) (availability of impeachment evidence under Rule 613(b))
- Gong v. Hirsch, 913 F.2d 1269 (7th Cir. 1990) (limitations on extrinsic evidence for impeachment)
- United States v. Elliot, 771 F.2d 1046 (7th Cir. 1985) (impeachment procedures under Rule 613(b))
- United States v. Wayland, 549 F.3d 526 (7th Cir. 2008) (sophisticated means and concealment strategies in fraud)
- United States v. Robinson, 538 F.3d 605 (7th Cir. 2008) (use of false identifiers to facilitate fraud)
- United States v. Knox, 624 F.3d 856 (7th Cir. 2011) (analysis of what constitutes sophisticated means)
- United States v. Kontny, 238 F.3d 815 (7th Cir. 2001) (concepts of sophisticated means in sentencing)