United States v. Michael Signoretto
535 F. App'x 336
5th Cir.2013Background
- Signoretto participated in a multi‑jurisdictional "bust‑out" fraud: conspirators bought UK telecom London Digital Ltd. (LDL), diverted funds via U.S. Nationwide Call Company (NCC) to a sham Spanish purchaser (FOCOS), and siphoned proceeds to conspirators' accounts.
- Signoretto acted as a liaison to the nominal LDL CEO (Jamieson) and delivered cash to co‑conspirator Jeffrey Hemmer on multiple occasions to cover legal and travel expenses; some cash drops were after Hemmer began cooperating with the FBI.
- The FBI obtained a November 2008 wiretap on Signoretto after submitting a 57‑page affidavit (Segedy affidavit); wiretap intercepts captured incriminating statements including discussion of a $400,000 fee and urging Jamieson to flee.
- British administrators filed a bankruptcy action in Indiana to recover LDL monies; Hemmer was deposed several times (fourth deposition in Nov. 2008) while covertly cooperating with federal agents who limited certain deposition topics.
- Signoretto was tried alone on one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud and one count of conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding; district court denied suppression, denied a Franks hearing, limited certain discovery/evidence, and convicted him; the Fifth Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a Franks hearing was required for the wiretap affidavit | Signoretto: affidavit contained material falsehoods/omissions (Gambino affiliation, omitted Indiana judge findings, money‑trail omissions) requiring an evidentiary hearing | Government: affidavit contained ample truthful, corroborating evidence (recorded calls, surveillance); omissions/denials are not material enough to defeat probable cause | Denied — even excising challenged material, affidavit provided probable cause and established necessity for a wiretap; no Franks hearing required |
| Whether evidentiary/discovery rulings violated Sixth Amendment right to present a defense | Signoretto: court’s limitations (quashed subpoenas, barred some billing records, limited Forms 302 copying) prevented presentation of "sham deposition" defense | Government: Signoretto was allowed cross‑examination of key witnesses and access to transcribe Forms 302; excluded materials were not shown to be relevant or required | Denied — rulings did not amount to denial of compulsory process or right to present a defense; "sham deposition" theory was presented to jury |
| Whether the "sham deposition" constitutes a defense to the obstruction/conspiracy charges | Signoretto: Nov. 2008 deposition was a sham and undermines obstruction charge | Government: charge targets conspiracy to obstruct the Indiana bankruptcy proceeding generally, not the deposition itself; Signoretto attempted to cause Hemmer to lie or leave before/after the deposition | Denied — "sham deposition" is not a defense to conspiracy to obstruct; conduct aimed at corrupting the proceeding supports conviction |
| Whether jury instructions or indictment should be quashed based on the sham‑deposition theory | Signoretto: instructions/indictment failed to account for the deposition context and defendant’s theory | Government: indictment and instructions tracked the charged conspiratorial obstruction and wire fraud conduct | Denied — no error; instructions and indictment were appropriate given the charges and evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (warrant/affidavit must be truthful; hearing required if material falsehoods were knowingly or recklessly included)
- United States v. Guerra‑Marez, 928 F.2d 665 (5th Cir. 1991) (Franks standard applies to wiretap authorization affidavits)
- United States v. Privette, 947 F.2d 1259 (5th Cir. 1991) (material misstatements/omissions requirement for Franks relief)
- United States v. Looney, 532 F.3d 392 (5th Cir. 2008) (even proven false statements do not require suppression absent deliberate/reckless inclusion; good‑faith exception)
- United States v. Bankston, 182 F.3d 296 (5th Cir. 1999) (wiretap statutory probable‑cause/necessity requirements)
- Washington v. Texas, 388 U.S. 14 (Sixth Amendment right to compulsory process is not equivalent to overruling routine evidentiary rulings)
- United States v. Williams, 998 F.2d 258 (5th Cir. 1993) (FBI Form 302 generally not discoverable but may be inspected/transcribed)
- United States v. Martin, 332 F.3d 827 (5th Cir. 2003) (standard of review for denial of Franks hearing)
- United States v. Skelton, 514 F.3d 433 (5th Cir. 2008) (de novo review for Sixth Amendment denial‑of‑defense claims)