695 F. App'x 657
3rd Cir.2017Background
- Medard and Dieudonne participated in a multi-state "double-dipping" scheme at Home Depot: one conspirator purchased items, a second presented the receipt and claimed payment for a second cart, paid a small item, then left with unpaid goods; returns were then made for store credit. Total fraud exceeded $260,000.
- Government evidence included surveillance video, electronic purchase/return records (including returns in Connecticut and Maryland), a spreadsheet tying returns to the defendants’ driver’s licenses, and some credit-card records. Medard sometimes used his own credit cards.
- Defendants gave statements: Medard denied involvement and denied recognizing co-conspirator Gary Cabral despite surveillance showing them together; Dieudonne admitted driving Cabral and returning items for payment.
- Both defendants were convicted by a jury of wire fraud and conspiracy to commit wire fraud; Medard sentenced to 30 months, Dieudonne to 28 months plus 3 years supervised release. Dieudonne is a deportable non-citizen.
- On appeal, Medard raises challenges to indictment redaction, a Rule 33 motion (weight of the evidence), and jury instructions; Dieudonne challenges the imposition of supervised release under U.S.S.G. §5D1.1(c).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court abused discretion by refusing to redact state allegations from the indictment provided to the jury | Medard/Dieudonne: references to Connecticut and Maryland were unsupported by trial evidence and prejudicial | Government: spreadsheet of returns linked to defendants’ driver’s licenses showed returns in those states | No abuse of discretion; evidence supported states listed in indictment |
| Whether Medard’s conviction should be vacated as against the weight of the evidence (Rule 33) | Medard: Government failed to prove he acted knowingly and willfully | Government: circumstantial evidence (repeated pattern, surveillance, records, false statements) supports knowledge and intent | Denial of Rule 33 motion affirmed; reasonable jury could infer knowledge and willfulness |
| Whether jury instructions on conspiracy failed to require proof of knowing participation beyond a reasonable doubt | Medard: instructions didn’t sufficiently emphasize knowing participation and specific intent | Government: instructions properly covered burden of proof, knowing participation, intent to defraud, and mere presence | No instructional error; jury adequately instructed |
| Whether imposition of supervised release on deportable Dieudonne violated U.S.S.G. §5D1.1(c) by lacking explanation (procedural error) | Dieudonne: court imposed supervised release without considering presumption against imposing it on deportable aliens | Government: concedes error and that it was plain but opposes relief on fourth plain-error prong | Vacated supervised-release term and remanded for limited resentencing because the unexplained imposition was plain error affecting fairness and public confidence |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Todaro, 448 F.2d 64 (3d Cir.) (district court discretion to provide indictment to jury)
- United States v. Pungitore, 910 F.2d 1084 (3d Cir.) (court may redact superfluous, prejudicial language from indictment given to jury)
- United States v. Silveus, 542 F.3d 993 (3d Cir.) (standard for Rule 33 weight-of-the-evidence review)
- United States v. Pearlstein, 576 F.2d 531 (3d Cir.) (circumstantial evidence may establish intent)
- United States v. Andrews, 681 F.3d 509 (3d Cir.) (requirements for proving knowing participation and intent)
- Molina-Martinez v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1338 (U.S.) (plain-error test framework)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (U.S.) (importance of reasoned sentencing explanations)
- Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (U.S.) (public confidence requires reasoned judicial explanations)