United States v. Samantha Johnson
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 18647
| 7th Cir. | 2013Background
- Gray and Anderson sought to buy a $322,000 Prairie du Sac home but could not qualify for financing; Gray enlisted a mortgage broker, Bowling, and later a plan with Samantha Johnson as a co‑borrower emerged.
- The closing involved a falsified loan application with inflated income and misrepresented occupancy; Johnson would be on the loan for two years.
- Bowling previously discussed with Gray and Johnson the false statements and terms he would include in the loan application; all parties attended the closing.
- Gray and Johnson knew the statements on the application were false and signed/initialed the document at the closing.
- Bowling later testified about his role and the false statements, and Gray and Johnson’s co‑defendant Johnson contributed to the conspiracy; the jury convicted them on the conspiracy and fraud counts.
- The district court denied extrinsic evidence of Bowling’s prior fraud when Gray and Johnson sought to introduce testimony from other borrowers, and the appellate court affirmed the conviction and the evidentiary ruling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for conspiracy conviction | Gray/Johson contend no reasonable jury could find conspiracy | Government presented Bowling’s testimony and documents showing agreement | Evidence sufficient to sustain conspiracy verdict |
| Credibility of key witness Bowling | Bowling's credibility is questionable and dates are unreliable | Jury credited credible corroborating documents and other witnesses | Credibility issues did not warrant reversal; jury may credit Bowling's testimony |
| Exclusion of extrinsic evidence (reverse 404(b)) | Exclude extrinsic evidence of Bowling’s prior acts prejudices defense | Exclusion proper; probative value slight and could mislead jury | No abuse of discretion; exclusion affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Farris, 532 F.3d 615 (7th Cir. 2008) (sufficiency review for conspiracy verdicts)
- United States v. Hills, 618 F.3d 619 (7th Cir. 2010) (reasonable doubt standard for verdicts)
- United States v. Lee, 558 F.3d 638 (7th Cir. 2009) (elements of conspiracy to commit fraud under §1014)
- United States v. Smith, 576 F.3d 681 (7th Cir. 2009) (credibility determinations; when to deem testimony improbable)
- Cardona‑Rivera, 904 F.2d 1149 (1st Cir. 1990) (internal consistency and credibility of testimony standard)
- United States v. Murray, 474 F.3d 939 (7th Cir. 2007) (reverse 404(b) evidence may be probative but must be weighed against prejudice and confusion)
- United States v. Sanders, 708 F.3d 976 (7th Cir. 2013) (reverse 404(b) evidence admissibility depends on probative value)
- United States v. Reed, 259 F.3d 631 (7th Cir. 2001) (Rule 404(b) analysis and probative value versus prejudice)
- United States v. Seals, 419 F.3d 600 (7th Cir. 2005) (prejudice and confusion considerations in 404(b) balancing)
- United States v. Alayeto, 628 F.3d 917 (7th Cir. 2010) (exclusion of reverse 404(b) evidence affirmed for central issue)
- United States v. Wilson, 31 F.3d 510 (7th Cir. 1994) (credibility of a cooperating witness despite prior dishonesty)