United States v. Persfull
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 20204
7th Cir.2011Background
- James filed a Chapter 7 bankruptcy on March 14, 2003; his mother Eileen died days later, leaving equal shares to James and Joseph.
- James signed a disclaimer of his inheritance but did not disclose it to the bankruptcy trustee.
- Stevens, the trustee, later learned of possible inheritance and reopened the bankruptcy in January 2005.
- James and Joseph conducted post-bankruptcy transfers and asset arrangements (mortgage payments, loans, real estate, insurance and investments) to benefit James or themselves, while James failed to amend schedules.
- A handwritten 'Affidavit of Heirship' falsely stated Eileen died without a will; multiple life insurance and annuity benefits were claimed inconsistent with the disclaimer.
- They were charged in a six-count superseding indictment for bankruptcy fraud, concealment, false statements, and obstruction; trial resulted in convictions for James on all counts and Joseph on count one.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the evidence suffices to prove a scheme to defraud the trustee | Persfulls contend circumstantial evidence proves the scheme. | Persfulls argue evidence is insufficient and plausibly innocent alternatives exist. | Sufficient circumstantial evidence supports guilt; district court did not abuse discretion. |
| Whether the evidence supports concealment of assets | Stevens showed deliberate non-disclosure of inheritance and assets. | Few direct links between actions and concealment; some items disclosed inconsistently. | Evidence supports concealment counts; jury could infer intent and credibility issues. |
| Whether the Bruton violation occurred by opening statement references to Joseph's statements | Statements referenced in opening supported James's guilt and violated Bruton. | No Bruton violation; statements were not admitted and limiting instruction cured risk. | No reversible Bruton error; limiting instruction adequate given circumstantial evidence. |
| Whether the aiding-and-abetting instruction was properly given and/or supported by the record | Different principal-and-aider theory justified the instruction. | Instruction should have included additional clarifying language; insufficient evidence for abetting. | Instruction proper; evidence supported aiding-and-abetting theory; no prejudice from omission. |
| Whether counsel was ineffective on direct appeal under Massaro | Ineffectiveness claims may be raised on direct appeal for egregious errors. | Record is insufficient to prove ineffective assistance; Massaro cautions against direct-appeal claims. | Massaro limits; no basis to find ineffective assistance on the direct record; no prejudice shown. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 (U.S. 1968) (Confrontation Clause limits when co-defendant's statement is admitted)
- Frazier v. Cupp, 394 U.S. 731 (U.S. 1969) (Limiting instructions can cure some Bruton-type errors)
- Massaro v. United States, 538 U.S. 500 (U.S. 2003) (Direct-appeal ineffective-assistance claims require unusual clarity)
- United States v. Howard, 619 F.3d 723 (7th Cir. 2010) (Circumstantial evidence may establish specific intent to defraud)
- United States v. Ellis, 50 F.3d 419 (7th Cir. 1995) (Concealment statute reaches all means of defeating bankruptcy goals)
- United States v. Van Allen, 524 F.3d 814 (7th Cir. 2008) (Debtors have a duty to report property interests in bankruptcy)
- United States v. Delay, 440 F.2d 566 (7th Cir. 1971) (Evidence that is equally consistent with innocence can negate guilt; here not the case)
- United States v. Keck, 773 F.2d 759 (7th Cir. 1985) (Affirm conviction when rational jurors could find guilt beyond reasonable doubt)
- United States v. Webster, 125 F.3d 1024 (7th Cir. 1997) (Circumstantial evidence sufficiency standard for fraud cases)
- United States v. Harris, 942 F.2d 1125 (7th Cir. 1991) (Direct appeal ineffectiveness is rare; Massaro considerations apply)