United States v. Michael L. Marasigan
1:23-cr-00014
| D. Guam | Aug 18, 2025Background
- Three defendants (Marasigan, Art Chan, Christine Chan) were charged in a federal indictment and superseding indictment related to operating an illegal gambling business (Bingo) and conspiracy to commit wire fraud, all connected to the Guam Shrine Club’s Hafa Adai Bingo.
- After a lengthy jury trial, all three were found guilty on all counts, including conspiracy to operate illegal gambling, money laundering (Marasigan, Christine Chan), and conspiracy to commit wire fraud (additional Count 65, superseding indictment).
- Following the verdict, defendants moved for judgment of acquittal (Rule 29) and, alternatively, for a new trial (Rule 33), arguing insufficient evidence, constructive amendment of the indictment, fatal variance, and improper ex parte jury communication (thank-you card).
- The thank-you card from jurors to the judge and clerk’s office was disclosed to parties and raised as an issue of alleged jury misconduct/ex parte communication by defense.
- The court reviewed the motions without oral argument and issued a written decision denying all post-trial motions in their entirety, finding sufficient evidence and no prejudicial error.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence (illegal gambling, Count 1) | Sufficient evidence shows bingo was illegal gambling under Guam law | Government failed to show bingo is illegal; licensing issues irrelevant | Evidence supports conviction; motion DENIED |
| Sufficiency of evidence (wire fraud conspiracy, Count 65) | Evidence of misrepresentation and misuse of funds deceived players | No proof of material misrepresentation or harm; players got bingo games | Evidence supports conviction; motion DENIED |
| Constructive amendment/fatal variance from indictment | Evidence and argument matched indictment charges and jury instructions | Government shifted theories at trial, used evidence outside superseding indictment | No amendment/variance found; motion DENIED |
| Jury misconduct/ex parte contact (thank-you note) | Card was innocuous, did not relate to facts or law of case | Card showed premature judgment, possible religious bias, merited new trial | No prejudice, no need for hearing; motion DENIED |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Nevils, 598 F.3d 1158 (9th Cir. 2010) (articulates standard for sufficiency-of-the-evidence review)
- United States v. Graf, 610 F.3d 1148 (9th Cir. 2010) (jury's role in determining guilt based on evidence)
- United States v. Kellington, 217 F.3d 1084 (9th Cir. 2000) (trial judge's discretion on new trial motions)
- Rushen v. Spain, 464 U.S. 114 (1983) (ex parte jury communications and necessity of hearing/prejudice)
- Illinois v. Allen, 397 U.S. 337 (1970) (right to be present at critical stages of the proceedings)