United States v. William Marr
760 F.3d 733
7th Cir.2014Background
- William P. Marr was convicted on six counts of wire fraud related to Equipment Source USA, LLC.
- Marr managed daily operations, including online forklift sales and signatory authority on Palos Bank merchant and checking accounts.
- Equipment Source ran a high-rate chargeback scheme; Palos Bank froze accounts and incurred substantial losses beyond reserves.
- Evidence showed Marr directed checks and funds through Equipment Source accounts, with instances of checks to cash or currency exchange.
- Trial featured expert testimony on finances and checks, with Marr’s defenses focusing on lack of direct cash involvement and challenge to certain evidence and instructions.
- Court affirmed conviction, restitution to Palos Bank, and related rulings on evidence and instructions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rule 404(b) propensity evidence | Marr's checks-to-cash evidence supported intent, not propensity | Evidence improperly showed prior bad acts to prove propensity | No reversible error; admissible for proper purpose under Rule 404(b) |
| Jury instructions on intent | Instructions correctly stated that intent to defraud suffices | Needed intent to defraud Palos Bank specifically | Instructions correctly informed law; no error in mens rea standard |
| Restitution authority under MVRA | Palos Bank qualifies as a victim under MVRA | MVRA limits restitution to victims; issue contested | District court had authority to order restitution to Palos Bank |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Collins, 715 F.3d 1032 (7th Cir. 2013) (standard for reviewing evidentiary rulings; abuse of discretion; plain error)
- United States v. Gulley, 722 F.3d 901 (7th Cir. 2013) (preservation and plain error standards for Rule 404(b))
- United States v. Hicks, 635 F.3d 1063 (7th Cir. 2011) (test for Rule 404(b) admissibility balanced against prejudice)
- United States v. Pelullo, 964 F.2d 193 (3d Cir. 1992) (wire fraud requires intent to defraud, not necessarily a specific victim)
- United States v. Tum, 707 F.3d 68 (1st Cir. 2013) (no requirement to prove defendant intended to defraud a specific victim)
- United States v. Serpico, 320 F.3d 691 (7th Cir. 2003) (approval of scheme-affected-financial-institution instruction)
- United States v. Williams, 479 F.3d 511 (7th Cir. 2007) (prosecutor's argument proper if based on trial evidence)
- United States v. Jones, 389 F.3d 753 (7th Cir. 2004) (propensity arguments; limits on improper jury statements)
- Jones v. Lincoln Elec. Co., 188 F.3d 709 (7th Cir. 1999) (timing of objections and cure by curative instructions)