United States v. Willson
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 3321
1st Cir.2013Background
- EVW received federal funding via a Massachusetts earmark intended for EVW to develop electric-mass-transit battery technology through PVTA and PEDA.
- The 7050 and later 7101 FTA cooperative agreements set funding-match requirements and accounting rules, including that only approved in-kind resources could count toward the match.
- Willson joined EVW in late 2000 as chief scientist and, after project funding wind-down, submitted invoices under the 7101 agreement asserting 50% FTA funding and matching costs.
- From 2000–2005 EVW submitted invoices that claimed the FTA never exceeded 50% of project costs, despite evidence of financial distress and limited non-federal matching.
- Audits and testimony revealed irregularities, including inflated/duplicated costs and mislabeling, and Willson disclosed only after governmental review.
- Willson was convicted after trial on conspiracy, wire fraud, and false-claims counts related to the 7101 invoices; other counts were acquitted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for intent to defraud | Willson asserts insufficient evidence of knowing fraud or conspiracy. | Willson contends errors tantamount to lack of intent or conspiracy proof. | Evidence supported intent and conspiracy beyond reasonable doubt. |
| Condonation instruction | Condonation by PVTA/FTA should negate intent. | Evidence supported condonation defense; district court erred in not instructing. | Court affirmed denial of condonation instruction; no plausible condonation evidence. |
| Reasonable interpretation instruction | Regulatory ambiguities allow an objectively reasonable interpretation that negates guilt. | Evidence did not show such a credible, record-supported interpretation. | Instruction properly refused; Prigmore not satisfied here. |
| Conspiracy element coherence | There was an explicit tacit agreement between Willson and Armitage to defraud the FTA. | Arguments addressed via individual acts rather than a conspiratorial plan. | Evidence supported a tacit agreement to defraud sufficient for conspiracy. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Poulin, 631 F.3d 17 (1st Cir. 2011) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence in criminal cases)
- United States v. Medina-Martinez, 396 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2005) (sufficiency and reasonable-doubt framework)
- United States v. Pires, 642 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2011) (reasonableness of inferences in evidence review)
- United States v. Vázquez-Botet, 532 F.3d 37 (1st Cir. 2008) (standard for construing reasonable interpretations of conduct)
- United States v. Ortiz, 966 F.2d 707 (1st Cir. 1992) (plausible rendition of the record standard in reviewing verdicts)
- United States v. Mubayyid, 658 F.3d 35 (1st Cir. 2011) (elements of conspiracy; overt act requirement)
- United States v. Barker Steel Co., 985 F.2d 1123 (1st Cir. 1993) (conspiracy proof standards)
- United States v. Prigmore, 243 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2001) (due process/fair warning; jury instruction on reasonable interpretations)
- United States v. Lanier, 520 U.S. 259 (U.S. 1997) (due process and fair warning principles in interpreting statutes)