United States v. Thomas Lucas, Jr.
849 F.3d 638
5th Cir.2017Background
- Thomas Lucas, Jr., an employee at a family real-estate firm, ran a multi-year fraudulent scheme claiming Disney would build a major theme-park development in North Texas and induced ~280 investors to invest about $47 million.
- Lucas presented fabricated documents, maps, photos, and letters and required nondisclosure agreements; he repeatedly changed and lied about the identity of his source.
- Investigators and victims discovered the fraud (e.g., a doctored photo was traced to a Disneyland event); Disney executives testified the project never existed.
- Lucas was convicted on seven counts of wire fraud and one count of making false statements to the FBI and sentenced to 210 months’ imprisonment.
- On appeal Lucas challenged (1) admission of evidence that he met his alleged source, Michael Watson, at a methadone clinic (Rule 404(b) issue), (2) denial of a new trial based on newly discovered partnership accounting evidence, and (3) admission/summarization of his deposition testimony and certain testimony by FBI Special Agent Velasquez (Rule 1006 / opinion testimony/plain-error issues).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Lucas) | Defendant's Argument (Government) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admission of methadone-clinic testimony (Rule 404(b)) | Evidence of meeting Watson at a clinic was an inadmissible prior bad act and highly prejudicial | Evidence was intrinsic/background to Lucas’s claimed source and therefore not barred by Rule 404(b) | Admitted; preserved challenge reviewed for abuse of discretion and affirmed (evidence intrinsic, Rule 404(b) inapplicable) |
| Preservation of Rule 404(b) objection | Pretrial motion in limine sufficed to preserve objection | Government argued lack of specificity and failure to renew at trial | Preserved; in limine objection met Rule 103 specificity and renewal was unnecessary |
| Motion for new trial — newly discovered evidence (missing partnership funds; payment to a witness) | New partnership accounting evidence shows another’s involvement and could lead to acquittal | Lucas failed to show required diligence and the evidence is immaterial/cumulative | Denied; abuse-of-discretion standard applied and district court did not err (diligence lacking; evidence unlikely to produce acquittal) |
| Admission/summarization of Lucas’s civil deposition via agent testimony (Rule 1006) | Agent impermissibly summarized deposition testimony (not allowed under Rule 1006) | Summary testimony was necessary given voluminous deposition and underlying transcripts/videos were available | Error to allow summary witness under Rule 1006, but not plain error entitlement to reversal (error not ‘‘clear or obvious’’; no prejudice shown) |
| Velasquez’s opinion/inflammatory testimony | Agent offered improper opinion testimony (e.g., linking drafting technique to terrorists; suggested inconsistencies) | Any error was harmless given overwhelming evidence | Reviewed for plain error and rejected; any error did not affect substantial rights or judicial integrity |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Williams, 900 F.2d 823 (5th Cir. 1990) (distinguishes intrinsic vs. extrinsic other-act evidence)
- United States v. Miranda, 248 F.3d 434 (5th Cir. 2001) (intrinsic-act evidence admissible when inextricably intertwined)
- Fullwood v. United States, 342 F.3d 409 (5th Cir. 2003) (limitations on summary witnesses and Rule 1006 use)
- United States v. Smyth, 556 F.2d 1179 (5th Cir. 1977) (Rule 1006 requires availability of underlying documents)
- United States v. Bishop, 264 F.3d 535 (5th Cir. 2001) (summary-evidence safeguards and limiting instruction)
- United States v. Gresham, 118 F.3d 258 (5th Cir. 1997) (standard for new trial based on newly discovered evidence)
- United States v. Clark, 582 F.3d 607 (5th Cir. 2009) (discussion of prior-bad-acts language)
- United States v. Trejo, 610 F.3d 308 (5th Cir. 2010) (plain-error review limits where extension of precedent required)
- United States v. Nguyen, 504 F.3d 561 (5th Cir. 2007) (cautions on summary witnesses introducing evidence jury has not heard)
- United States v. Piazza, 647 F.3d 559 (5th Cir. 2011) (materiality standard for newly discovered evidence)