United States v. Sharon Gandy-Micheau
926 F.3d 248
| 6th Cir. | 2019Background
- Siblings Anthony, Christopher, and Sharon Gandy (with others) created 21 fictitious trusts, obtained EINs, filed fraudulent IRS Form 1041 returns claiming excessive withholding, and caused the IRS to issue refund checks; defendants received about $360,469.05 in net proceeds.
- The scheme used real people’s identifying information (some stolen from robbery victims) and recruited friends/family to lend or use their IDs; checks were mailed to P.O. Boxes controlled by the defendants and cashed or deposited into trust accounts.
- Law enforcement found notebooks, original ID documents, and other records of nearly 100 identity-theft victims at Sharon’s home; trash pulls recovered additional indicia of the scheme.
- A jury convicted Anthony, Christopher, and Sharon of multiple counts including mail fraud, conspiracy to commit mail fraud, aggravated identity theft (18 U.S.C. § 1028A), conspiracy to commit identity theft, and illegal monetary transactions; McCoy was acquitted.
- Sentences: Anthony 80 months; Christopher and Sharon 72 months; joint-and-several restitution of $360,469.05.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Government) | Defendant's Argument (Gandy) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for Sharon’s convictions | Circumstantial and direct evidence (Sharon cashed a refund check, rented P.O. boxes, kept notebooks and IDs) supports intent and participation | Record is devoid of proof Sharon intended to defraud or knew trusts were illicit | Affirmed — circumstantial evidence warranted convictions; no manifest miscarriage of justice |
| Knowledge that IDs belonged to real people (aggravated identity theft) | Circumstantial proof (notebooks, original IDs, use of IDs to obtain P.O. boxes/bank accounts) shows defendants knew IDs belonged to real persons | Defendants claim no evidence they knew the IDs were real people’s | Affirmed — jury could infer knowledge from use and scrutiny by IRS/USPS/banks and possession of victims’ documents |
| Ineffective assistance based on state-bar grievances creating conflict | Counsel continued representation, communicated, and had no competing professional obligation; grievances were frivolous and did not impair representation | Anthony & Christopher argued grievances created conflict, impairing counsel’s performance re: speedy-trial objections | Affirmed — no actual conflict or deficient performance shown; Strickland standard not met |
| Duplicity/unanimity of aggravated-identity-theft counts (multiple victims/predicate offenses) | Even with multiple victims/predicates, evidence showed the names were used together and jury convicted unanimously of at least one predicate, eliminating risk of nonunanimity | Counts are duplicitous; jury must unanimously agree on victim and specific predicate | Affirmed — no plain error: Schad and related law permit general verdicts; evidence precluded risk of nonunanimous verdict; jury unanimously found conspiracy (a predicate) in any event |
| Aiding-and-abetting instruction (whether Rosemond requires knowledge of another’s knowing use of real ID) | Instruction as a whole required willful causation and included elements of aggravated identity theft (including knowledge IDs belonged to others), satisfying Rosemond principles | Instruction insufficient because it did not require knowledge that another person would use real victims’ personal information to commit every element | Affirmed — instructions taken together required willful causation and knowledge element; no plain error |
| Sufficiency of evidence to give aiding-and-abetting instruction for aggravated identity theft | Evidence that defendants procured P.O. boxes, accompanied/caused others to open accounts, delivered documents, and directed withdrawals supports that they caused others to commit the acts | Anthony contended he had no role with specific returns/EINs/trust documents for some counts | Affirmed — reasonable juror could conclude defendants caused or procured others to perform acts; instruction was not an abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Williams, 612 F.3d 417 (6th Cir.) (standards for manifest miscarriage of justice review)
- United States v. Parkes, 668 F.3d 295 (6th Cir.) (intent to defraud may be inferred from scheme and circumstantial evidence)
- Desert Palace, Inc. v. Costa, 539 U.S. 90 (2003) (circumstantial evidence affords same weight as direct evidence)
- United States v. Soto, 720 F.3d 51 (1st Cir.) (circumstantial evidence can establish knowledge element in identity‑theft statutes)
- United States v. Holmes, 595 F.3d 1255 (11th Cir.) (successfully using stolen ID in official scrutiny supports knowledge that ID belongs to a real person)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (ineffective-assistance-of-counsel standard)
- Rosemond v. United States, 572 U.S. 65 (2014) (aiding-and-abetting requires intent covering the full scope of the charged offense)
- Schad v. Arizona, 501 U.S. 624 (1991) (general verdicts need not identify which overt act or theory persuaded each juror)
- United States v. Duncan, 850 F.2d 1104 (6th Cir.) (earlier requirement for unanimity on the specific false statement; later abrogated by Schad)
- United States v. Kakos, 483 F.3d 441 (6th Cir.) (duplicity/unanimity analysis and when risk of nonunanimity is eliminated)
- United States v. Kilpatrick, 798 F.3d 365 (6th Cir.) (modified Strickland analysis for conflict-based ineffective assistance claims)