United States v. Noha Fofana
543 F. App'x 578
6th Cir.2013Background
- Noha Fofana, owner of Mandingo African Market in Flint, MI, was convicted by a jury of conspiracy to commit food stamp (SNAP) fraud and sentenced to 51 months imprisonment, supervised release, and restitution.
- Mandingo participated in SNAP; store employees purchased EBT benefits from recipients (about $0.50 per $1) and allowed use of benefits for ineligible items.
- Prosecution presented eyewitnesses and circumstantial evidence tying Fofana to manual EBT entries, unusually high SNAP redemptions, large cash withdrawals from a store-controlled account, a wallet note matching SNAP totals, and a text offering to trade food stamps for cash.
- Defense sought to shift blame to store manager Akhir McFarland, Sr.; McFarland Jr. testified about the scheme but denied being offered money to lie.
- Defense called Devaroe Davis to testify that he overheard McFarland Jr. say on speakerphone that his father would give him $10,000 to support his father’s story. The district court admitted Davis’s testimony only to impeach McFarland Jr.’s credibility, not to prove the bribe occurred.
- Fofana appealed, arguing the court erred by limiting the jury’s use of Davis’s testimony to impeachment rather than allowing substantive use to show a bribe and corrupt motive.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Davis’s testimony about McFarland Jr.’s statement that his father offered $10,000 was admissible substantively to prove a bribe (not just for impeachment) | Fofana: the jury should hear the statement substantively to show a bribe was offered and thus corrupt motive for testimony | Gov't/District: the testimony is hearsay when used to prove the truth of the bribe allegation and only admissible to impeach McFarland Jr. | Court: Affirmed district court — the statement as offered was hearsay (not a direct verbal act by the alleged bribe-giver) and could properly be limited to impeachment |
| If error occurred, whether it was harmless | Fofana: outcome turned on credibility; admitting substantive bribe evidence could have changed verdict | Gov't: abundant direct and circumstantial evidence made any error harmless; Davis’s account was already before jury and Davis’s credibility was weak | Court: Any error was harmless given strong eyewitness and circumstantial evidence and impeachment evidence already presented |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Wright, 343 F.3d 849 (6th Cir. 2003) (standard of review for evidentiary rulings)
- Trepel v. Roadway Express, Inc., 194 F.3d 708 (6th Cir. 1999) (abuse-of-discretion review of evidentiary rulings)
- Preferred Properties, Inc. v. Indian River Estates, Inc., 276 F.3d 790 (6th Cir. 2002) (verbal acts exception discussion)
- United States v. Montana, 199 F.3d 947 (7th Cir. 1999) (distinguishing performative verbal acts from hearsay in bribery context)
- United States v. Vasilakos, 508 F.3d 401 (6th Cir. 2007) (harmless error standard for evidentiary mistakes)