United States v. Pelisamen
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 7565
| 9th Cir. | 2011Background
- Peliseimen was administrator of Rita Kaipat's estate and, with Arriola, diverted funds from Rita's estate to personal accounts, including a $1.365 million share to Rita's estate and other heirs.
- Defendant and Arriola withdrew approximately $625,775 from Rita's estate through checks signed by both, including amounts to Defendant, his wife, and a car dealership purchase.
- In 2005, $4.4 million compensation for land taken by MPLA was deposited into an estate account; Bellas initially controlled the account and later transferred funds via Arriola to new accounts.
- Defendant and Arriola were indicted in 2008 on conspiracy to commit wire fraud, wire fraud, conspiracy to commit money laundering, and two money laundering counts; Defendant was convicted on all counts.
- District court sentenced Defendant to concurrent 60-month terms and restitution of $626,775; on appeal, issues focus on the impact of the Skilling decision and the validity of the money-or-property theory.
- Jury was instructed on both a money-or-property theory and an honest-services theory; special verdict form indicated convictions on both theories.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Impact of Skilling on conviction | Pelisen argues Skilling renders honest-services conviction invalid. | Pelisen contends the jury relied on honest-services theory alongside money-or-property theory. | Money-or-property theory conviction remains valid. |
| Was including dishonest-services theory plain error | Skilling forecloses honest-services as a theory; error under plain-error standard. | Instruction improperly allowed conviction based on honest-services theory. | Plain error found, but did not affect substantial rights; conviction sustained on money-or-property theory. |
| Effect of the special verdict form | Special verdict shows the jury convicted on a money-or-property theory. | Special verdict could be ambiguous without clear theory. | Verdict form supports pecuniary fraud theory; conviction valid. |
| Sufficiency of evidence for wire fraud | Evidence showed scheme to defraud by taking money from Rita's estate. | Argued insufficient to prove intent or elements of wire fraud. | Sufficient evidence established a scheme to defraud and intent to defraud. |
| Other appellate contentions (false testimony, Brady, admissibility) | Contentions lack merit or fail on the record. | Challenged testimony and Brady material and admission of certain exhibits. | No reversible errors; rulings upheld on evidentiary issues. |
Key Cases Cited
- Skilling v. United States, 130 S. Ct. 2896 (2010) (honest-services fraud void for non-bribery/kickback conduct)
- Hedgpeth v. Pulido, 555 U.S. 57 (2008) (instructional error in multi-theory verdicts not necessarily fatal)
- Black v. United States, 130 S. Ct. 2963 (2010) (convictions may remain when a reasonable jury would have found pecuniary fraud)
- Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461 (1997) (plain-error review framework after conviction when new rule arises)
- United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (1993) (plain-error test for reversals)