United States v. Sharon Hall
979 F.3d 1107
| 6th Cir. | 2020Background
- Sharon Hall was indicted on eleven counts of bank fraud (Counts 1–11) alleging violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1344(1)–(2) for fraudulent student-loan applications and one count of aggravated identity theft (Count 12) tied to an electronically signed forbearance request (Count 11).
- Evidence showed Hall forged family members’ signatures (children, niece, sister), altered paystubs, and electronically signed a PLUS-loan forbearance in Elissa Morgan’s name; Hall admitted many signatures at trial but claimed she believed she had permission and lacked criminal intent.
- Defense counsel did not timely object to an alleged duplicitous indictment (charging § 1344(1) and (2) in each count) or to several prosecutor remarks during closing argument; the government informed the court it would proceed only under § 1344(1) before jury instructions.
- The jury convicted Hall on all counts; the district court denied a late-filed Rule 33 motion for a new trial (excusable neglect) and sentenced Hall to an aggregate 36 months imprisonment.
- Hall appealed, raising four issues: (1) duplicitous indictment / jury unanimity; (2) insufficiency of evidence for Counts 11–12; (3) prosecutorial misconduct in closing (Golden Rule and related remarks); and (4) abuse of discretion in denying leave to file a late Rule 33 motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Hall) | Defendant's Argument (Government) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Duplicitous indictment / jury unanimity | Indictment charged both §1344(1) and (2) in same counts, risking nonunanimous verdict | Government elected to pursue only §1344(1) at trial and jury was instructed on §1344(1) only | Jury instructions cured any duplicity; no reversible error |
| Sufficiency of evidence for Count 11 (forbearance) and Count 12 (identity theft) | Forbearance is not "depriving a bank of something of value"; Count 12 depends on Count 11 | Forbearance deprives a bank of the chance to bargain and of payments during the forbearance; Hall admitted to electronically signing Elissa's name | Evidence sufficient for Count 11; Count 12 stands based on admission |
| Prosecutorial misconduct (closing argument; Golden Rule; misstatements) | Prosecutor improperly asked jurors to see themselves as victims and misstated evidence (Suburbans) | Statements were isolated or permissible appeals to community interest; evidence against Hall was strong | Remarks improper but not flagrantly prejudicial; plain-error review fails; convictions stand |
| Denial of leave to file late Rule 33 motion (excusable neglect) | Delay excused by ineffective trial counsel; new counsel had reason to wait until Rule 29 denial | Long delay after new counsel appeared, no prompt request for leave, district court did not abuse discretion | District court did not abuse discretion denying leave; Pioneer factors weigh against excusable neglect |
Key Cases Cited
- Shaw v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 462 (2016) (§ 1344 "something of value" analysis; banks can lose the chance to bargain)
- United States v. Munoz, 605 F.3d 359 (6th Cir. 2010) (Pioneer-factor analysis for excusable neglect on late Rule 33 filings)
- United States v. Elenniss, [citation="729 F. App'x 422"] (6th Cir. 2018) (denial of leave for late Rule 33 where new counsel delayed seeking leave)
- United States v. Gandy, 926 F.3d 248 (6th Cir. 2019) (plain-error review where duplicity not raised pretrial)
- United States v. Kakos, 483 F.3d 441 (6th Cir. 2007) (definition and issues of duplicitous indictments)
- United States v. Hood, 210 F.3d 660 (6th Cir. 2000) (jury instruction or government election can cure duplicity)
- United States v. LeBeau, 949 F.3d 334 (7th Cir. 2020) (forbearance agreements upheld as the basis for § 1344 convictions)
- Carroll v. United States, 26 F.3d 1385 (6th Cir.) (framework for assessing flagrancy of prosecutorial misconduct)