Case Information
*1 U NITED STATE S D ISTR ICT CO UR T SO UTH ER N D ISTR ICT O F FL O R ID A C ase N os. 12-20322-CR -SEITZ 12-20400-C R-SEITZ 13-20455-C R-SElTZ U N ITED STA TES O F A M ERICA
RICA RD O A M A D OR BA LLESTERO S G AR CIA ,
alkla CçRicardo Am ador Ballesteros,''
a/k/a tdRicardo A m ador Ballester,''
a/k/a StAlejandro Alvarez Abreu,''
D efendant.
/ ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S M O TION FOR JUDGM ENT O F ACOUITTAL
TH IS M ATTER is before the Court on Defendant's M otion to Reverse Conviction and Grant an Order for Post-Trial Judgment of Acquittal gcase No. 12-20400, DE 152; Case No. 13- 20455, DE 1371 and the Government's Response gcase No. 12-20400, DE 157; Case No, 13- 20455, DE 1431. For a second time, Defendant argues that his charges for bank fraud and m aking a false statem ent to a financial institution violate D ouble Jeopardy, this tim e alleging jury confusion and inconsistent verdicts.
Under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 29(c)(1), a motion for ajudgment of acquittal m ust be fled w ithin fourteen days of the verdict. Even assum ing D efendant's m otion w ere tim ely, which it is not, it is w ithout m erit.A s the Court has previously explained in denying Defendant's motion to dismiss based on Double Jeopardy (Case No. 12-20400, DE 93; Case No. 13-20455, DE 791, the critical question is whether at least one element in each charged offense differs from the other. Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299, 304 (1932). That the jury acquitted him of bank fraud illustrates their understanding that bank fraud and m aking false *2 statem ents were separate crim es with distinct elements.
Defendant's claim that the verdicts were inconsistent because the jury acquitted him of the Stm ore serious'' offense of bank fraud w hile convicting him on the charges of m aking false statem ents is also w ithout m erit. First, Defendant m isunderstands the m eaning of an acquittal: it is not an affirm ative finding of innocence, only a determ ination that the Governm ent failed to m eet its heavy burden at trial. Second, as noted above, the crim es have different elem ents, so it is not inconsistent for the jury to find that the Government failed to prove the elements of bank fraud beyond a reasonable doubt but m et its burden w ith respect to the counts for m aking false statem ents. lndeed, D efendant does not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence on these counts of conviction - he simply argues the jury was confused given the number of charges.
Finally, even if the jury verdicts were inconsistent, actual or apparent inconsistency alone is not a basis for acquittal where the evidence supports a fnding of guilt. United States v. Albury, 782 F.3d 1285, 1295 (1 1th Cir. 20l 5).Here, there was sufficient evidence to support a conviction for m aking false statem ents to a financial institution. See Eleventh Circuit Pattern Jury lnstruction O39 (20 1 0). Defendant himself testified that he used a false identity he created in applying for the loans at issue and that he never gave the banks his true identity. A s to his intent, Defendant testified that he used his alias sim ply because he w as living in the U nited States under that identity as part of greater efforts to prom ote dem ocracy in Cuba, but the Governm ent presented evidence that D efendant had a Florida driver's license, later applied for pennanent legal resident status under his true identity, and provided other false infonnation, including overstating assets, on som e of the loan applications. M oreover, the Govelmm ent established that each of the banks from w hich D efendant obtained loans w ith his false identity w as federally insured. Therefore it is
O RDERED TH AT
(1) Defendant's M otion to Reverse Conviction and Grant an Order for Post-Trial Judgment of Acquittal (Case No. 12-20400, DE 152; Case No. 13-20455, DE 137j is DENIED.
D efendant's request for an evidentiary hearing is also D EN IE D . DONE AND ORDERED in Miami, Florida, this 1 day of February, 2016. w G PA T C A A . SEITZ U N ITED STA TES DISTRICT JUD G E cc: Counsel of Record
Pro se Defendant