United States v. William Weygandt
681 F. App'x 630
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- William Weygandt, manager/owner of WECO, was indicted and convicted by a jury for conspiracy to commit fraud involving aircraft parts in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 38(a); he appealed the conviction and denial of his motion for judgment of acquittal.
- Evidence at trial showed Weygandt was a hands-on manager, attended production meetings, controlled major purchases, and employees testified they lacked required equipment and were pressured to sign 8130-3 forms despite noncompliant repairs.
- The indictment alleged Weygandt directed employees to complete repairs and sign 8130-3s knowing repairs did not comply with component maintenance manuals (CMMs).
- Weygandt raised sufficiency-of-the-evidence and numerous trial-error claims (jury instruction, constructive amendment/variance, prosecutorial misstatements, wealth references, discovery/prosecutorial misconduct, guilt-assuming hypotheticals, limits on character testimony, and cumulative error).
- The Ninth Circuit reviewed de novo the sufficiency and certain instructional errors, and reviewed other unpreserved issues for plain error or for abuse of discretion, ultimately affirming the conviction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of the evidence | Government: Evidence supports inference Weygandt knew of and intended the fraud (control over purchases, knowledge of inadequate equipment, employees’ testimony). | Weygandt: Government failed to prove his knowledge and intent to defraud. | Affirmed — viewing evidence in light most favorable to prosecution, a rational juror could find knowledge and intent beyond a reasonable doubt. |
| Jury instruction re: "accountable manager" | Government: Instruction properly explained role without eliminating mens rea requirements. | Weygandt: Instruction permitted conviction on vicarious liability. | Affirmed — instruction did not misstate elements and was not an abuse of discretion. |
| Constructive amendment / fatal variance | Government: Trial theory (including inaction) was consistent with indictment alleging he directed and caused false certifications. | Weygandt: Prosecutor advanced an inaction theory that altered charges or proof. | Affirmed — evidence at trial matched indictment; no constructive amendment or fatal variance. |
| Prosecutor misstatements (closing) | Government: Closing argument interpretation of a memorandum supported by record and Exhibit 504 was in evidence for jurors to assess. | Weygandt: Prosecutor misstated evidence by asserting an interpretation of Exhibit 504 as fact. | Affirmed — isolated misstatements occurred but were not prejudicial under plain-error review; jury had document to evaluate. |
| References to defendant’s wealth | Government: Wealth evidence showed motive/ability to buy equipment and thus intent. | Weygandt: References to wealth were improper and unduly prejudicial. | Affirmed — evidence could bear on motive/intent; any error was not plain or obvious. |
| Alleged prosecutorial misconduct / witness exclusion | Government: Disclosures and witness handling did not amount to misconduct; remedial measures were taken. | Weygandt: Government committed discovery violations, blocked defense witnesses, and elicited false testimony. | Affirmed — district court found no prosecutorial misconduct; no basis to dismiss. |
| Guilt-assuming hypotheticals & limits on character evidence | Government: One improper series of hypothetical questions was harmless; other questions permissible. | Weygandt: Prosecutor asked guilt-assuming hypotheticals and court improperly limited character testimony. | Affirmed — single series of improper hypotheticals was harmless; limiting specific-instance character evidence was proper under Rules 404/405. |
| Cumulative error | Weygandt: Combined errors require reversal. | Government: Errors were isolated and not prejudicial in aggregate. | Affirmed — only minimal errors occurred and did not produce significant prejudice. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Bennett, 621 F.3d 1131 (9th Cir.) (standard for de novo review of sufficiency challenges)
- United States v. Nevils, 598 F.3d 1158 (9th Cir. en banc) (view evidence in light most favorable to prosecution)
- United States v. Chi Mak, 683 F.3d 1126 (9th Cir.) (standards for reviewing jury instructions)
- United States v. Hugs, 384 F.3d 762 (9th Cir.) (plain error standard for unpreserved instructional/variance objections)
- United States v. Adamson, 291 F.3d 606 (9th Cir.) (defines constructive amendment and variance doctrines)
- United States v. Kojayan, 8 F.3d 1315 (9th Cir.) (prosecutor may not make unsupported factual claims in argument)
- United States v. Weatherspoon, 410 F.3d 1142 (9th Cir.) (plain error review for prosecutorial misstatements)
- United States v. Reyes, 660 F.3d 454 (9th Cir.) (admissibility of wealth evidence for motive/intent)
- United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (U.S.) (plain-error reversal requires clear or obvious error affecting substantial rights)
- United States v. Whitehead, 200 F.3d 634 (9th Cir.) (compelling immunity requires government took affirmative steps to prevent testimony)
- United States v. Shwayder, 312 F.3d 1109 (9th Cir.) (limits on guilt-assuming hypotheticals to character witnesses)
- United States v. Hankey, 203 F.3d 1160 (9th Cir.) (abuse-of-discretion review for evidentiary rulings)