United States v. Sagarsen Haldar
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 8189
7th Cir.2014Background
- Haldar, leader of GVS-Milwaukee, sponsored 25 religious-worker visa applications (R-1) from 2004–2007; 17 were approved.
- DHS/USCIS investigated GVS-Milwaukee after State Department concerns and an anonymous tip about visa fraud.
- Haldar was charged in 2010 with conspiracy to defraud the United States under 18 U.S.C. § 371.
- Key evidence included DHS agents’ testimony and covert recordings of two meetings with three visa recipients who paid Haldar to obtain visas.
- The three recipients testified they intended to work in secular jobs while Haldar helped obtain sponsorship and training certificates.
- Prosecutor argued Haldar used his temple leadership to further the fraud; defense claimed he was deceived and a victim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Prosecutorial misconduct regarding temple legitimacy questioning | Haldar asserts 403 prejudice from proffered statements about temple legitimacy. | Haldar contends the statements and Lubbad’s testimony unfairly attacked religious sincerity. | No plain error; statements not shown to breach promise or be prejudicial enough. |
| Closing argument misstatement and evidence outside record | Haldar claims the closing echoed facts not in evidence and misstated testimony. | Haldar says prosecutor misrepresented testimony; closing was improper enhancement. | No prosecutorial misconduct; statements were fair comment on evidence. |
| Failure to instruct on religious-qualification issue | Haldar argues error for not instructing jury on religious-worker qualifications. | Haldar claims instruction should have been given or otherwise plain-error review. | No error; lack of requested instruction not reversible, and no plain error shown. |
| Cumulative error | Aggregate errors would warrant reversal. | Errors, if any, are minor and not cumulatively prejudicial. | No cumulative error; only one minor issue identified. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Jones, 739 F.3d 364 (7th Cir. 2014) (plain-error review framework)
- United States v. Alexander, 741 F.3d 866 (7th Cir. 2014) (plain-error framework details)
- United States v. Melvin, 730 F.3d 29 (1st Cir. 2013) (prosecutor’s use of proffered information violating due process)
- United States v. Klebig, 600 F.3d 700 (7th Cir. 2010) (unduly prejudicial trial testimony example)
- United States v. Wolf, 787 F.2d 1094 (7th Cir. 1986) (inference-based prejudicial conduct reviewed)
- United States v. DeGeratto, 876 F.2d 576 (7th Cir. 1989) (prejudicial insinuations in crime cases)
- United States v. Conner, 583 F.3d 1011 (7th Cir. 2009) (unfairly prejudicial evidence standard)
- United States v. Roe, 210 F.3d 741 (7th Cir. 2000) (context for evidence fairness in closing arguments)
- Brown v. United States, 411 U.S. 223 (1973) (fair-trial standard and perfection of trial not guaranteed)