Archive
Please remember to use your browser's REFRESH button to
ensure you are veiwing the most recent version of the web page.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. ALPHONSO MICHAEL ESPY, Defendant Criminal No. 97-0335 (RMU) UNITED STATES' OPPOSITION AND
INCORPORATED MEMORANDUM TO DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISMISS COUNTS 9 THROUGH 12 OF THE INDICTMENT
OFFICE OF INDEPENDENT COUNSEL
DONALD C. SMALTZ
In Re Alphonso Michael (Mike) Espy
103 Oronoco Street, Suite 200
Alexandria, Virginia 22314
Phone: (703) 706-0010
Fax:
(703) 706-0076 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page No. TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ii I.
INTRODUCTION 1 II.
ARGUMENT 1
A.
THE LEGAL STANDARD FOR TESTING ALLEGATIONS OF
AN INDICTMENT ARE MET
1
B.
COUNTS 9 THROUGH 12 OF THE INDICTMENT SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGE MAILINGS TO FURTHER
DEFENDANT'S SCHEME 2 III.
CONCLUSION 7
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Page No. Deaver v. United States, 155 F.2d 740 (D.C. Cir. 1946). 6 Schmuck v. United States, 489 U.S. 706, 109 S.Ct. 1443 (1989)
6 United States v. Conlon, 628 F.2d 150 (D.C. Cir. 1980) 1,
2 United States v. Critzer, 951 F.2d 306 (11th Cir. 1992)
3, 4 United States v. Edmond, 924 F.2d 261 (D.C. Cir. 1991) 3, 4 United States v. Lemire, 720 F.2d 1327 (D.C. Cir. 1983) 2 United States v. Licciardi, 30 F.3d 1127 (9th Cir. 1994) 6 United States v. Pollack, 534 F.2d 964 (D.C. Cir. 1976) 2 *United States v. Sun-Diamond Growers
of California, 941
F.Supp. 1262 (D.D.C.
1996) 2, 3, 5 United States v. Sun-Diamond Growers
of California, 964
F.Supp. 486 (D.D.C.
1997) 2 United States v. Wilson, 98 F.3d 281 (7th Cir. 1996)
6 I. INTRODUCTION
Defendant's assertion that the mail fraud counts contained in Counts 9-12 of the
Indictment should be dismissed because these mailings are not in furtherance of the
alleged scheme as a matter of law, is wholly without merit.
Whether defendant intended these letters to further his scheme or to "right an
alleged wrong" as he suggests, (Mem. of Points and Auth. in Supp. of Def.'s Mot. to
Dismiss Counts 9-12 of Ind. ("Def.'s Mem.") at 5), is a question for the trier
of fact. The indictment sufficiently alleges
that defendant mailed these payments in order to conceal and disguise his activities and
intent to solicit and receive illegal gratuities, and that such actions were taken to
further the his fraudulent scheme. Thus,
defendant's motion should be denied. II. ARGUMENT A.
THE LEGAL STANDARD FOR TESTING ALLEGATIONS OF AN INDICTMENT ARE MET
An indictment is sufficient if it clearly informs the defendant of the precise
offense for which he is accused so that he may prepare his defense. United States v. Conlon, 628 F.2d 150, 155
(D.C. Cir. 1980) (citing Russell v. United States, 369 U.S. 749, 763-64, 82 S.Ct.
1038, 1046-47 (1962) and United States v. Debrow, 346 U.S. 374, 377-78, 74 S.Ct.
113, 115-16 (1953)). The general rule is
that the indictment must state the essential elements of the offense and be supplemented
with enough detail to apprise the accused of the particular offense with which he is
charged. Id.
The elements of a violation of the mail or wire fraud statute are (1) a scheme to
defraud, and (2) use of a wire or the mails to further that scheme. United States v. Lemire, 720 F.2d 1327,
1334-35 (D.C. Cir. 1983) (citing cases). The
government need not prove nor allege that the scheme was ultimately successful or that the
intended victim actually suffered an injury. United
States v. Sun-Diamond Growers of California, 964 F.Supp. 486, 492 (D.D.C. 1997)
(citing United States v. Pollack, 534 F.2d 964, 971 (D.C. Cir. 1976)). B.
COUNTS 9 THROUGH 12 OF THE INDICTMENT SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGE MAILINGS TO FURTHER
DEFENDANT'S SCHEME
Defendant asserts that Counts 9-12 of the Indictment fail to properly allege
mailings in furtherance of defendant's scheme because he does not believe that the
mailings could further defendant's scheme. (Def.'s
Mem. at 2-5). However, the time for the
government to put forth its theory of proof is at trial, not in opposition to a pre-trial
motion to dismiss for failure to allege an offense. United
States v. Sun-Diamond Growers of California, 941 F.Supp. 1262, 1275-76 (D.D.C. 1996). In Sun-Diamond Growers, this Court faced
from defendant Sun-Diamond the precise argument made by defendant here -- that a specific
mailing (there a wire) could not further the execution of an alleged scheme to defraud and
the substantive count based on that mailing should therefore be dismissed. Id. This
Court held that where the indictment sufficiently identifies the elements of the charged
offense, the defendant's motion to dismiss must be denied.
Id. at 1276. For "[t]he
sufficiency of the evidence is a matter to be left for trial." Id. (citing United States v. Critzer,
951 F.2d 306, 307 (11th Cir. 1992)). Only
then need the government establish that the mailing advanced or was integral to the
execution of the fraud. Id. Defendant has not and cannot cite to a
single authority mandating a different result.
This holding is supported by the fact that an indictment itself need not provide
evidentiary detail explaining the government's theory of proof on how the mailing was in
furtherance of the scheme to defraud. See
United States v. Edmond, 924 F.2d 261, 269 (D.C. Cir. 1991) (finding that indictment
need not specifically state that theory of defendant's liability for murder was the Pinkerton
doctrine). "[T]he function of a federal
indictment is to state concisely the essential facts constituting the offense, not how the
government plans to go about proving them." Id.
Thus, in analyzing a motion to dismiss an indictment for failure to state an
offense, a court should look only at the face of the indictment, not at the facts the
government expects to prove. Critzer,
951 F.2d at 307.
The indictment alleges that defendant devised and intended to devise a scheme and
artifice to defraud by: (i) engaging in a pattern of soliciting and accepting
gratuities from persons and entities who were regulated by and/or had matters pending
before his office; (ii) concealing his receipt of things of value by not reporting
them on the required public Financial Disclosure Reports; (iii) making false
pretenses for the purpose of justifying official travel to obtain the gratuities; (iv)
concealing his activities concerning the receipt of gratuities by lying to federal
investigators and providing them with a false and altered document; (v) mailing
"reimbursements" of certain gratuities uncovered by the press to make his
actions appear benign and disguise his intent in soliciting and accepting the gratuities;
(vi) lying to the Office of the President about the extent of gratuities received; and
(vii) misusing government assets and causing the expenditure of public funds for his
personal benefit -- all in violation of the laws and regulations of the United States
and in detriment to the interests of the public. (Indictment at ¶¶ 4-14).
Counts 9-12 of the Indictment charge that for the purpose of executing this scheme,
defendant caused to be mailed four payments to entities who had provided defendant with
gratuities, stating and/or implying that said payments were "reimbursements" for
specific gratuities he had received. (Id.
at ¶¶ 17-18). According to the scheme
charge (which is incorporated by reference into Counts 9-12), defendant made these
payments after the media published questions and concerns regarding his receipt of
gratuities from individuals with matters pending before the USDA and that he made such
mailings in order to conceal and disguise his activities and intent to solicit and receive
illegal gratuities. (Id. at ¶13).
As the indictment states the essential elements of defendant's crime -- a scheme to
defraud and mailings for the purpose of executing this scheme -- and provides defendant
with sufficient detail of the underlying facts so as to apprise him of the particular
offense with which he is charged, the indictment is sufficient, and defendant's motion is
properly dismissed. Sun-Diamond Growers,
941 F.Supp. at 1275-76.
Moreover, as the indictment makes clear, the mailings forming the basis for Counts
9-12 did indeed further defendant's scheme. His
scheme included, in part, continued concealment of his improper actions both through
omission and affirmative acts and misstatements. As
alleged in the indictment, defendant mailed these "reimbursements" to further
conceal his activities and intent regarding his solicitation and receipt of gratuities. Such mailings, which affirmatively assisted
defendant in carrying out his fraudulent scheme, could hardly be concluded as a matter
of law to be insufficient basis for substantive mail fraud counts. See Schmuck v. United States, 489 U.S. 706,
109 S.Ct. 1443 (1989) (holding that mailing of title-application forms to the State by
auto retailers to whom defendant fraudulently sold used cars with rolled-back odometers
was sufficiently in furtherance of defendant's scheme and could form basis for mail fraud
counts against defendant).[1] Defendant's mailings are properly charged as
substantive mail fraud counts.
United States v. Wilson, 98 F.3d 281 (7th Cir. 1996) and United States v.
Licciardi, 30 F.3d 1127 (9th Cir. 1994), cited by defendant, are not apposite. (Def.'s Mem. at 4).
These cases confirm that mailings which conceal are properly the subject of mail
fraud counts as both defendants were convicted for mailings designed to prevent disclosure
of the underlying fraudulent activity. However,
in the instant matter, once investigative efforts of the media and federal investigators
disclosed the underlying activity itself, only defendant's fraudulent intent and the
extent of his scheme remained unknown to the public. The mailings charged in Counts 9-12
served to prevent disclosure of this information.[2] Thus, they were made to further his scheme which
included continued concealment. III. CONCLUSION
Defendant requests that this Court consider only one of many possible
interpretations of his actions in causing the mailings in Counts 9-12. However, as a jury could well find that these
mailings were in fact to further his scheme to defraud, defendant's motion to dismiss
these counts is misguided. The indictment
alleges each of the essential elements of defendant's crimes and provides him with
sufficient detail of the underlying facts to be fully informed of the crimes for
which he has
been charged. This is all that is required. Defendant will have his day in court to rebut
these allegations before a trier-of-fact; but he may not now properly argue such before
this Court. Date: November 20, 1997
Respectfully submitted,
OFFICE OF INDEPENDENT COUNSEL
In Re Alphonso Michael (Mike) Espy
__________________________________
Donald C. Smaltz, Independent Counsel
William F. Fahey
Roscoe C. Howard
Theodore S. Greenburg
Joseph P. Guichet
103 Oronoco Street, Suite 200
P.O. Box 26356
Alexandria, Virginia 22314
Tel: (703) 706-0010
Fax: (703) 706-0076
United
States v. Alphonso Michael Espy
Criminal No. 97-0335 (RMU) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I
HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing United States' Opposition and
Incorporated Memorandum to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Counts 9 Through 12 of the
Indictment for Failure to State an Offense was sent this 20th day of November, 1997 via messanger to the following:
Reid
H. Weingarten, Esq.
Steptoe
& Johnson, LLP
1330
Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Washington,
D.C. 20036-1795 and via First
Class United States mail, postage prepaid, to the following:
Theodore
V. Wells, Jr., Esq.
Lowenstein,
Sandler, Kohl, Fisher & Boylan
65
Livingston Avenue
Roseland,
NJ 07068-1791
Charles
J. Ogletree, Jr., Esq.
320
Hauser Hall
1575
Massachusetts Avenue
Cambridge,
MA 02138
____________________________
Joseph
P. Guichet
[1]Furthermore, despite defendant's contention that the
mail fraud statute must be strictly construed, (Def.'s Mem. at 3, citing United States
v. Staszcuk, 502 F.2d 875, 880 (7th Cir. 1974)), it has long been recognized by this
circuit that that statute is broad in scope. See
Deaver v. United States, 155 F.2d 740, 744 (D.C. Cir. 1946). [2]Defendant's assertion that the mailings could not
further his scheme because they facilitated detection of his alleged fraudulent activity
(Def.'s Mem. at 5), ignores the explicit language of the indictment that these mailings
took place because the underlying fraudulent activity had already been exposed. See
Indictment at ¶ 13.
|