United States v. Timothy Parkes, 668 F.3d 295

Parkes was convicted on ten counts of bank fraud arising from December 2002 entries that falsely appeared as new loans to ten entities at Benton Bank.
The government linked Parkes to a scheme devised by Benton Bank President Goddard to hide Remington’s large loans by recharacterizing them as smaller, fictitious loans to avoid FDIC limits.
Remington Industries owed Benton Bank substantial amounts; the bank paid Livingston $2,250,000 to reduce Remington’s debt, with Parkes and Mourier providing personal notes.
Goddard secretly pursued fictitious borrowers and altered records to disguise Remington’s indebtedness and Bank’s lending exposure; Parkes’s connection to the specific December 2002 notes was indirect.
The government’s case relied on circumstantial evidence (notably a fax listing ten company names) and did not produce testimony from Goddard confirming Parkes’s knowledge or participation.
On appeal, the court reversed and vacated Parkes’s convictions, ruling the evidence failed to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and highlighting evidentiary and prosecutorial errors.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for bank fraud	Parkes lacked knowledge or participation.	Goddard’s fraud was independent; Parkes had no intent.	Insufficient evidence; acquittal affirmed (reversed).
Admissibility of Rule 404(b) evidence	Evidence of Goddard’s prior frauds showed motive and opportunity.	Evidence valid for motive/opportunity; not mere propensity.	District court abused discretion; evidence should have been admitted with limiting instructions.
Prosecutorial misconduct in closing	No improper influence; trial fair.	Prosecutor’s comment implied financial windfall and biased the jury.	Comment was improper and prejudicial; mistrial or remedy required.
Judgment finality and remedy	Convictions should stand if evidence sufficed.	Court should grant acquittal or retrial based on insufficient evidence.	Convictions reversed and sentence vacated; remand for entry of acquittal.

United States v. Everett, 270 F.3d 986 (6th Cir. 2001) (three elements of bank fraud; proof beyond reasonable doubt)
Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1979) (sufficiency standard: rational juror could find elements beyond doubt)
Huddleston v. United States, 485 U.S. 681 (U.S. 1988) (rule 404(b) admissibility and proper weighing of probative value)
United States v. Isaia, 434 F.3d 513 (6th Cir. 2006) (circumstantial evidence and inferences in conspiracy cases)
United States v. Abboud, 438 F.3d 554 (6th Cir. 2006) (necessity of mistrial for prosecutorial overreach)
United States v. Tarwater, 308 F.3d 494 (6th Cir. 2002) (mistrial due to prosecutorial misconduct)
United States v. Solivan, 937 F.2d 1146 (6th Cir. 1991) (standard for mistrial due to prosecutorial error)
United States v. Carroll, 26 F.3d 1380 (6th Cir. 1994) (scope of prosecutorial misstatements and limiting instructions)
United States v. Jones, 108 F.3d 668 (6th Cir. 1997) (permissible inferences and evidentiary standards in fraud cases)