United States v. Schmitz
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 4352
| 11th Cir. | 2011Background
- Schmitz, a former Alabama state legislator, was convicted of three mail-fraud counts and four theft-concerning-a-federal-program counts tied to CITY Program employment.
- Indictment alleged she obtained CITY Program employment via a flexible work schedule and submitted false statements to conceal extensive nonwork.
- CITY Program was federally funded; she allegedly received about $177,000 in salary and benefits while performing little to no work.
- Schmitz obtained the job through political connections and a meeting with program directors, with the job created for her and no competitive search.
- She sought to conceal nonwork through false time sheets and progress reports, including a flexible schedule approved by a supervisor.
- District court vacated the federal-funds convictions due to failure to plead a proper scheme to defraud, while affirming mail-fraud convictions and sentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the indictment adequately charged mail fraud and federal-funds fraud. | Schmitz argues counts 5–8 lack facts; insufficient notice. | Schmitz contends federal-funds counts fail to allege a scheme to defraud. | Mail-fraud counts adequate; federal-funds counts improper and vacated. |
| Whether the evidence supports mail-fraud convictions beyond a reasonable doubt. | Schmitz claims insufficient intent and link to mailings. | Schmitz asserts lack of proof of fraudulent intent. | Evidence supports mail-fraud convictions; credibility issues resolved in favor of government. |
| Whether prosecutorial misconduct occurred via were-they-lying cross-examination and closing remarks. | Schmitz contends questions and closing remarks shifted burden and impaired fairness. | Government argues questions tested plausibility; some openings exist. | Not plain error; no reversal for plain error. |
| Whether the were-they-lying questions/remarks were plain error requiring relief. | Schmitz claims significant error. | No plain error established; standard not met. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Jordan, 582 F.3d 1239 (11th Cir. 2009) (indictment validity and notice, read as a whole, practical standards)
- United States v. Sharpe, 438 F.3d 1257 (11th Cir. 2006) (mail-fraud elements and scheme-to-defraud standard)
- United States v. Huff, 512 F.2d 66 (5th Cir. 1975) (each count must stand on its own content; express incorporation required)