United States v. Wright
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 14260
| 7th Cir. | 2011Background
- Wright and Henderson were charged with conspiring to launder drug proceeds under 18 U.S.C. § 1956; Henderson was also charged with § 1957.
- The scheme involved using drug proceeds to purchase and renovate seven properties via R & P New Development, with deeds recorded in Henderson and Lando's names.
- A key transaction involved $240,000 of drug proceeds given to Lando, who used it through real estate purchases and renovations, with Henderson demanding half and ultimately assisting the purchases.
- A February 7, 2003 quitclaim deed from Henderson to Wright, correcting a prior deed, was determined to be an act in furtherance of the conspiracy to conceal the drug money’s origin.
- Indictment occurred on February 5, 2008; defendants argued the statute of limitations expired because the last substantive act occurred in May 2002, but the court held the conspiracy extended to the 2003 quitclaim deed.
- At trial, the government relied on witness testimony, property deeds, and bank records to prove conspiracy; Henderson challenged the § 1957 conviction based on the under-$10,000 initial transaction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of indictment under the statute of limitations | Wright/Henderson: last act in May 2002, indictment too late. | Last act occurred in 2002; conspiracy time bar. | Indictment timely; February 7, 2003 quitclaim was a substantive act in furtherance, extending the conspiracy. |
| Sufficiency of evidence for conspiracy to launder under § 1956 | Evidence showed intentional coordination among Wright, Henderson, Lando, Coates, and Williams to launder proceeds. | Argued insufficiency to prove knowing participation and money laundering. | Evidence supported conspiracy verdict; reasonable jurors could find intent and knowledge. |
| Validity of Henderson's § 1957 conviction | The transaction that violated § 1957 was the later sale of the property with proceeds. | Initial $8,000 transaction failed to meet $10,000 threshold. | § 1957 conviction reversed; initial $8,000 transaction insufficient, so count set aside. |
| Confrontation Clause error from Agent Kaiser's testimony | Admission of Wright's statements via Kaiser corroborated guilt. | Need for Confrontation; error prejudicial. | Harmless error; admission was cumulative/corroborative and did not affect outcome. |
| Judicial instructions on conspiracy duration and knowledge | Instructions correctly conveyed law on duration and knowledge; adequate to guide verdict. | Potential confusion on knowledge and scope of conspiracy. | Instructions, taken as a whole, were proper and did not misstate the law. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Yashar, 166 F.3d 873 (7th Cir.1999) (last act in furtherance can extend statute of limitations for conspiracy)
- United States v. LaSpina, 299 F.3d 165 (2d Cir.2002) (overt acts in furtherance of money laundering conspiracy)
- United States v. Lee, 232 F.3d 556 (7th Cir.2000) (requirement that criminally derived property exists before § 1957 transaction)
- United States v. Haddad, 462 F.3d 783 (7th Cir.2006) (§ 1957 requires a monetary transaction exceeding $10,000)
- United States v. Hill, 563 F.3d 572 (7th Cir.2009) (sentencing guideline interpretations; de novo review of legal questions)
- United States v. King, 627 F.3d 641 (7th Cir.2010) (sufficiency standard: view evidence in light most favorable to government)
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (U.S. 1963) (suppression of favorable evidence; materiality standard)
- United States v. Adams, 628 F.3d 407 (7th Cir.2010) (Confrontation Clause; de novo review of evidentiary rulings)