United States v. Troy David Chaika
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 20440
| 8th Cir. | 2012Background
- Chaika and LaFavre formed Superior Investment Group (SIG) to acquire unsold luxury homes, arrange inflated mortgage loans, and conceal kickbacks from lenders.
- False mortgage-related documents supported inflated prices, including duplicate HUD forms, false appraisals, and misrepresented incomes/net worth.
- Participating in over 100 transactions, SIG paid undisclosed cash to buyers; many buyers later defaulted, leading to foreclosures below balances.
- Chaika was convicted on multiple counts; LaFavre pled guilty, cooperated, and testified against Chaika; Chaika appeals on impeachment and expert-witness issues; Chaika was sentenced to 102 months; restitution order of $7,430,858.30 was challenged.
- The appellate court vacated the restitution order but otherwise affirmed the judgment and remanded for restitution proceedings in light of constitutional and evidentiary concerns.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Impeachment of LaFavre with prior sex-offense conviction (Rule 609/403) | Chaika argues district court erred by excluding the conviction for impeachment. | Chaika contends Rule 609(a)(1)(A) requires admission, balanced by Rule 403. | No abuse of discretion; district court properly weighed probative value against prejudice. |
| admissibility of government expert witnesses | Chaika asserts experts were unnecessarily prejudicial and duplicative. | Government argues experts aided understanding of mortgage fraud MO and industry practices. | No abuse of discretion; experts properly allowed to explain industry structure and fraud MO. |
| Substantive reasonableness of Chaika’s 102-month sentence | Chaika argues disparity with LaFavre and lack of weight to mitigating factors. | Court properly considered cooperation and character; substantial disparity permissible. | Within discretion; no reversible error given cooperation and sentencing discretion under §3553(a). |
| Restitution order validity and process | Order of Restitution lacked notice and a complete list of victims; potential ex parte elements. | Restitution figures tied to PSR data and district court deferred issues per §3664(d)(5). | Remanded for proper restitution proceedings; order reversed to address notice, victim listing, and loss calculations. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Foley, 683 F.2d 273 (8th Cir. 1982) (Rule 403 balancing in impeachment determinations)
- United States v. Banks, 553 F.3d 1101 (8th Cir. 2009) (Broad discretion to admit or exclude impeachment evidence)
- United States v. Morris, 327 F.3d 760 (8th Cir.) (Rule 403 discretion in impeachment and relevance considerations)
- United States v. Solorio-Tafolla, 324 F.3d 964 (8th Cir. 2003) (Impeachment and admissibility principles under Rule 609)
- United States v. Liner, 435 F.3d 920 (8th Cir. 2006) (Expert testimony admissibility to explain complex fraud schemes)
- United States v. Parish, 565 F.3d 528 (8th Cir. 2009) (Loss estimation versus actual victim loss for restitution)
- United States v. Yeung, 672 F.3d 594 (9th Cir. 2012) (Actual loss requirement for restitution awards)
- United States v. James, 592 F.3d 1109 (9th Cir. 2010) (Causation and loss in restitution context)
- United States v. Innarelli, 524 F.3d 286 (1st Cir. 2008) (Restitution and factual support considerations)
- United States v. Archer, 671 F.3d 149 (2d Cir. 2011) (Victim status and kickback-related losses in MVRA restitution)
- United States v. Ojeikere, 545 F.3d 220 (2d Cir. 2008) (Victim losses and causation in restitution awards)
- United States v. Jefferson, 652 F.3d 927 (8th Cir. 2011) (Restitution standards and evidence)