Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cr-00228/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cr-00228-6/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Heather L. Coleman
Defendant
USA
Plaintiff

Document Text:

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

PRETRIAL CONFERENCE ORDER AND

ORDER ON PRETRIAL MOTIONS–1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) 

 )

 Plaintiff, ) NO. 05-CR-0228-JLQ 

 ) 

vs. ) 

 ) 

HEATHER L. COLEMAN, ) PRETRIAL CONFERENCE ORDER

 ) AND ORDER ON PRETRIAL MOTIONS

 Defendant ) 

 )

A pretrial conference and hearing on pretrial motions was held on December 8,

2005, in Sacramento, California. Assistant United States Attorney Susan Fahami

appeared on behalf of Plaintiff. Defendant appeared personally and through her attorneys

Vito De La Cruz and Michael Kennedy. This Order is intended to reflect the oral rulings

of the court. Defendant’s Motion to Suppress Evidence is Denied; Defendant’s Motion

to Inspect Personnel Files is Granted; Defendant’s Motion for Discovery is Granted;

Defendant’s Motion to File Further Motions is Granted; Defendant’s Motion for

Notice of 404(b) Evidence is Reserved; Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss for Duplicity is

Denied; Defendants Motion To Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction is Denied With Leave

to Renew; and Defendant’s Motion for Change of Venue is Granted for the following

reasons.

1, Motion to Suppress Evidence

Defendant contends that her statements should be suppressed because she was not

given her Miranda warnings. However, an officer’s obligation to administer the

warnings mandated by Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) attaches only where

there has been such a restriction on a person’s freedom as to render him or her into

custody. United States v. Crawford, 372 F.3d 1048, 1053 (9th Cir. (en banc) (citations

Case 2:05-cr-00228-JLQ Document 38 Filed 12/15/05 Page 1 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

PRETRIAL CONFERENCE ORDER AND

ORDER ON PRETRIAL MOTIONS–2

omitted). “An officer’s obligation to administer Miranda warnings only attaches where

there has been such a restriction on a person’s freedom as to render him in custody.” Id. at

1059 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). A person is in custody only where

“there is a formal arrest or restraint on freedom of movement of the degree associated

with a formal arrest. Id. (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). A court must

examine the totality of the circumstances from the prospective of a reasonable person in

the suspect’s position. Id. (citation omitted). 

In Crawford, the court held that the defendant was not in custody when he

accompanied the officers to an FBI office, the officers told him he was not under arrest

and was free to leave, and the officers drove him home after the interview. Id. at 1051-

52, 1060. Similarly in California v. Beheler, 463 U.S. 1121 (1983) (per curiam), the

Supreme Court held that Miranda warnings are not required when a suspect voluntarily

comes to a police station, is not placed under arrest, and is allowed to leave unhindered

after a brief interview. 

Here, the Defendant’s initial interview on April 29, 2004 by officers was in her

own home in the family room with her husband present. The Defendant was not in

custody. The officers told her she was not under arrest, was free to leave, and would not

be arrested , which she was not. She told the officers she was not surprised to see them. 

The Defendant told the officers in detail as to her involvement in the handling of Judge

Damrell’s financial matters. She stated that beginning in 2003, she began paying her own

creditors from Judge Damrell’s SmithBarney account and that she gave the Judge an

altered financial statement to cover up those payments. These statements were freely and

voluntarily given. The Agents asked her to write a written statement and she complied. 

FBI Agent Richard J. Snodgrass testified that the Defendant was calm, shaken and

showed some remorse, was very polite and cooperative. This interview lasted for 1and

1/2 to 2 hours. 

On May 4, 2004, Agent Snodgrass called Ms. Coleman on the telephone and asked

her how she paid her own personal bills using Judge Damrell’s Smith-Barney checks. 

Case 2:05-cr-00228-JLQ Document 38 Filed 12/15/05 Page 2 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

PRETRIAL CONFERENCE ORDER AND

ORDER ON PRETRIAL MOTIONS–3

She stated that she mailed the checks to her creditors. 

On June 17, 2004, Agent Snodgrass called Ms. Coleman again to ask if he could

come to her home for additional questions about the Bank of America checks. Instead,

she suggested going to the FBI office and did so for another interview. She was again

told that she was not under arrest, and was free to leave. Again she was cooperative,

voluntarily answered the agent’s questions and gave the agents another written statement. 

The Defendant was not in custody or under arrest. She then left the office. 

At none of the interviews was Ms. Coleman ever in custody or under arrest. She

was repeatedly told she was not under arrest and was free to leave. Therefore,

Defendant’s Motion to Suppress Evidence of her statements must be and is Denied. 

2. Defendant’s Motion to Inspect Personnel Files

The court previously directed that the Government have the files inspected of the

agents as to any Henthorn material. The Government stated that it had asked for

inspection but had not yet received the results. It is Hereby Ordered that not later than

December 31, 2005, the Government shall file a report containing the results of the

Henthorn inspection. Any alleged non-relevant reports may be submitted not later than

December 31, 2005for an in camera review by the court as to relevancy. 

3. Defendant’s Motion for Discovery

FBI Agent Richard J. Snodgrass testified that he had not turned over his notes from

Defendant’s interview and spread sheets to the U.S. Attorney and did not bring them to

court. It is Hereby Ordered that counsel for the Plaintiff shall obtain the notes, spread

sheets, and tape recording, if any, referred to and turn copies over to counsel for the

Defendant on or before December 31, 2005. The Government shall also forthwith turn

over the grand jury transcripts and subpoenas to counsel for the Defendant. Counsel for

the Government shall forthwith confer with the agents and obtain any and all documents

concerning this matter in the agents’ control or possession other than privileged matters,

whether the Government intends to introduce them at trial or not. If there is any claim of

privilege, it shall be submitted to the court in camera forthwith for a ruling by the court. 

Case 2:05-cr-00228-JLQ Document 38 Filed 12/15/05 Page 3 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

PRETRIAL CONFERENCE ORDER AND

ORDER ON PRETRIAL MOTIONS–4

The Government shall turn over all such documents, notes and records to counsel for the

Defendant except for privileged material on or before December 31, 2005.

4. Defendant’s Motion for Notice of 404 (b) Evidence & F. R. Crim. P. 16(a)(1)(F)

The Motion for Notice of 404(b) Evidence is Reserved until time of trial. 

Pursuant F. R. Crim P. 16(a)(1)(F), the Government shall give notice of its intent to use

any expert on bank procedures and policies and a summary thereof and shall furnish it to

counsel for the Defendant on or before December 31, 2005. The Defendant shall comply

with her reciprocal duty per F.R. Crim P. 16 (b)(1)(C). 

5. Defendant’s Motion to File Further Motions. 

This Motion is Granted. However, any further motions shall be timely filed. Any

additional motions arising out of newly furnished discovery shall be served and filed on

or before January 13, 2006. 

6. Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Counts 14-94 as being Duplicitous

The court finds that is no issue to warrant dismissal of the bank fraud counts based

on duplicity in view of the scheme to defraud alleged in the Indictment and the court’s

proposed unanimity instructions. 

7. Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Counts 14-94 for Lack of Jurisdiction

Defendant relies on United States v. Laljie, 184 F.3d 180 (2nd Cir. 1999), which

held that there is no bank fraud where no forged signatures are involved, and the

employer of the defendant signed the checks himself, which this court finds to be a rather

restrictive ruling. “ A conviction under the scheme to defraud clause of the bank fraud

statute requires a pattern or course of conduct designed to deceive a federally chartered or

insured financial institution into releasing property with the intent to victimize the

institution by exposing it to actual or potential loss.. In United States v. Jacobs, 117 F.3d

82 (2nd Cir. 1997) the court held that where a bank pays over a forged signature, the

bank faces a risk of loss. 

18 U.S.C. § 1344 (2) provides that whoever knowingly executes, or attempts to

execute a scheme or artifice to obtain any of the moneys, funds, credits, assets, securities,

Case 2:05-cr-00228-JLQ Document 38 Filed 12/15/05 Page 4 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

PRETRIAL CONFERENCE ORDER AND

ORDER ON PRETRIAL MOTIONS–5

or other property owned by, or under the control or custody of a financial institution by

means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations or promises is guilty of bank fraud. 

In United States v. King, 200 F.3d 1207 (9th Cir. 1999), the court held that the second

paragraph of the bank fraud statute includes a situation where a bank disperses funds

under its control as a result of fraud. It does not have to be money owned by the bank. 

The King court cited to United States v. Sayan, 968 F.2d 55, 61, n. 7 (D.C.Cir. 1992)

(noting that false signatures and endorsements on checks and drafts would have

supported a conviction under § 1344(2) had that statute been in effect when the conduct

occurred). 

 Here, page 2 of the Second Superceding Indictment charges that Defendant used Bank

of America blank checks of her employer for her personal benefit. Defendant’s Motion to

Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction is Denied With Leave to Renew. If the evidence 

indicates that Counts 14-94 were based on the Defendant using her employer’s

authorized signature stamp, the legal issue of whether use of the signature stamp was a

misrepresentation to the bank will need to be addressed.. 

8. Defendant’s Motion for Change of Venue

This Motion is Granted. Jury trial shall commence in Las Vegas, Nevada at 9:00

a.m. on Monday, February 13, 2006. A separate Order changing venue will be entered.

9. Trial briefs, requested jury voir dire and proposed jury instructions shall be served

and filed and in the court’s hands on or before February 3, 2006. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. The Clerk is further directed to enter this Order and

forward copies to counsel. 

DATED this 14th day of December, 2005.

 s/ Justin L. Quackenbush 

 JUSTIN L. QUACKENBUSH

 SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:05-cr-00228-JLQ Document 38 Filed 12/15/05 Page 5 of 5