### FI LED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT Octob er 1 9, 2004 THO MAS K. KAH N CL ERK

Honora ble Wilbur D. Owens, Jr., United States District J udg e for the Middle District of * Geor g ia, sitting by

desig nation. [PUBLIS H] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 03- 1072 5

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Dock etNo. 0 1- 00 25 1- CR-J -2 5- TEM UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Plaintiff-Appellee, ve rs us GEORGE CHANDL ER, JEROM E PEARL, KEVIN J. W HITFIELD, JOHN HENDE RSON, Defen da nt s- App el la nt s,

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Appeals fr om

the United State s District Court fo r the Mi ddl e D istri ct

of F lor ida

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (O ct ob er 19, 200 4) ON PETITION FOR REHEARING Before DU BIN A and HIL L, Circuit Judges, and OW EN S , D istrict Judg e. * HI LL , C ircuit Judg e:2

The governm ent filed a lim ited Petition for Rehear ing, in which it concedes that the c onvi ct ion s of

the appe llants sho uld

be va cate d and, upo n r em an d, j udgm ents of acquittal are to be enter ed. The lim ited relief sought is th at the court re sc ind that part of the opi nio n ( Part

I I. A . 2) that ho lds that vi olatio n of the r ule s of a privately

prom oted gam e, without m ore, could no t, under the fa cts of this case,
am ount to m ai l f ra ud. Inasm uch as the governm ent seeks no m odification of the judgm ent, and, as the section of the opin ion to which the governm ent’ s m otion is directed is an alternative holdin g rendered unnecessary by this concessio n, and w ithou t further co nsi de ratio n of

the m er its ve l no n of

the m oti on, the pane l gr an ts r eh eari ng and subs tit ute s th e fo llo w ing opi nio n: T he gov er

nm en t c harg ed

de fe ndants in the Mi ddl e D istri ct of F lor ida w ith co nspi ri ng t o c om

m it m ai l f ra ud, in vio la tio n of

18 U . S. C. § 37 1. D ef

en dants herein proceeded to trial and were found gu ilty
. Ea ch filed a m otion for a j udgm en t of

a cquitta l, w hic h th e dis tr ic t c ourt de nie d. E ac h a ppe al s th at

de nia l. I. T his tr ia l c le ar ly

de m onstrate s th e inh er en t dange r in a m ult i- de fe ndant co nspi ra cy

pr ose cu tio n – tha t i ndi vid ua ls who are not

a ct ua lly m em be rs of the gr oup w ill be sw ep t i nto the c onsp ir at or ia l ne t. B ec au se the gov er nm en t i s3

pe rm itt ed br oa d pr ose cu tor ia l di sc re tio n to pr ove the c onsp ir ac y , the li ke lih ood e x i s t s th a tth o s e w h o a s s o c i a t e w i t h c o n s p i r a t o r s w i l l b e f o u n dg u i l t y o f

ac r i me th atth ey ha ve no t i nt en de d t o c omm it , and pa rt o f a g ro up th atth ey ne ve r joi ne d. See D ennis v. U

nited Sta tes , 384 U. S. 855, 860 (196 6). This danger is com

poun ded when the grand j ury indicts on one theory

of the ill eg al c ondu ct , but

the gov er

nm en t pr ose cu te s th e ca se on an e nti re ly dif fe re nt the or y . T his r oa m ing the or

y of the pr ose cu tio n c anpr oduc e tr ia l e rr or of co ns ti tu ti on al pro po rti on s. See R ussell v. U nited Sta tes , 369 U . S. 749 , 768 ( 1962 ) (ill-defined charges leave “ the prosecution fre e to roam at large – to shi ft its theory of c ri m ina lity

so a s to take a dvanta ge of e ac h pa ssi ng v ic iss itu de of the tr ia l and appeal”). W e ha ve se ensuc h c onsp ir ac y pr ose cu tio ns b ef

or e. I n United States v. A dk ins on , 135 F . 3d 1 363 (1 1 Ci r. 199 8) , w e re ve rs ed c onvi ct ion s ob ta ine d by

the th gove rn m en t up on an in dic tm en t tha t a lle ge d c ondu ct not ac ri m e unde r the pr ev ai lin g law . I n th at

c as e, the dis tr ic t c ourt w as pe rs ua de d to pe rm it the gove rn m en t t o pr oc ee d up on the a ssu m pti on tha t the c ontro lli ng l awof m ai l f ra ud wou ldch an ge pri orto th e en d o f tr ia l. Id
. a t 13 69. A t the c los e of the governm ent’ s case, with the lawunchanged, the court attem pted to cure the defec t by r ed ac tin g th e ind ic tm en t of the a lle ga tio ns n ot s ta tin g ac ri m e, and i nstru ct ingThe indictment super cede d an ea rlier one . Some defe ndants, but not appellants, wer e 1 also cha rg ed with the substantive off ense of mail fraud, 18 U .S.C. § 1341. 4 th e jury as to th e co rrec t l aw. Id
. a t 13 76. B ut the dam ag e ha d be endon e. T he j ur y ha d li ste ne d to m onths o f te sti m ony f ro m num er ous w itn es se s w hose te st im on y , as i t t urne d o ut , was b ot h i rrel ev an t an d h ig hl y pre jud ic ia l. Id

. at 1 37 2. U nde r the se c ir cum stanc es , w e he ld tha t f undam en ta l du e pr oc es s w as de nie d th e de fen da nt s an d v acat edth ei r co nv ic ti on s. Id
. a t 13 74. U nf ortun at el y , the gov er

nm en t i n th is c as e onc e m or e en ga ge d inthi s re gr etta ble and unc onst itu tio na l se ri es of e ve nts . A. In dic tm en t an d P

re -T ria l P roc ee din gs On D ecem

ber 6, 2001 , a

grand j ury

em paneled by

the United State s District Co urt f or the Mi ddl e D istri ct

of F lor ida , Ja ck sonv ill e D ivi sio n, r et ur ne d a62 p ag e ind ic tm en t c harg ing 43 d ef en dants w ithc onsp ir ac y

to co m m it m ai l f ra ud, in vio la tio n of

18 U . S. C. § 37 1. T he de fe ndants w er e al le ge d to have use d th e 1 Un i t ed St at es m ai l s i n fu rt h er an ce o f a s ch eme a n dar t i fi ce t o d ef ra u dMc Do n al d ’s Co rp or at ion( Mc D ona ld’ s)
. D ur ing the r el ev an t t im e pe ri od, Mc D ona ld’ s co nduc te d “ Mon opol y ” sty le and “ H at ch , Matc h and W in” pr om oti ona l gam es to attract c ustom ers to McD onald’s r estaurants. O ver tw enty differ ent gam es we re play ed dur ing thi s ti m e. T he gam es w er e play ed by vis iti ng the r es taur an t,Game stamps were also ava ilable upon written re quest to McDonald’ s or in newspa per 2 a dv e rt ise me nts . Chandler is fr om Walhalla, South C arolina, Pea rl from Miami, Flor ida, Whitfield from 3 Savannah, G eorg ia, and He nderson f rom L as Ve g as, Ne vada. T he def endants c halleng ed venue and ra ise the issue ag ain on appe al, but we ne ed not addr ess it as we de cide the c ase on othe r 5 pur ch as ing f

ood, and c oll ec tin g th e ga m e stam ps tha t w er e atta ch ed

to the vari ous fo od p ro duc ts s old

by Mc D ona ld’ s. C er

ta in g am e stam

ps w er e “ w inn er s, ” w orth 2 subs tantial sum s of m oney . McD onald’s em ploy ed Sim on Marketing, Inc. (“ Si m on” ) to d ev el op, m an ag e, and a dve rt ise the gam es . Je ro m e Ja co bsonw as the D ir ec tor of S ec ur ity f or S im on, w ithr es pons ibi lity f or dis se m inatin g th e hig hva lue gam e stam

ps. T he ind ic tm en t a lle ge d th at Ja co bsonw oul d e m

be zz le the se gam e stam

ps an d c onsp ir e w ithf

ri en ds, r el at ive s, and o the rs to ac t a s “ re cr uit er s, ” w ho w oul d in tur n so lic it oth er

f ri en ds and r el at ive s to sub m it the sto le n w inn ing gam e stam ps t o Mc D ona ld’ s and c oll ec t the pr iz e m one y . Appe llants G eo rg e Ch an dle r, Joh n He nderson, Jerom e Pe arl and K evin J. Whitfield were alleged to have recr uited winners or r edeem ed stolen gam e stam ps. Pr ize m oney , it w as alleged, wa s shared by Jacobson and the other conspirators. T he scope of the alleged conspiracy wa s s ub s t a n t i a l , a s e v i d e n c e db y b o t h th e n u mb e r o f d e f e n d a n t s an dth e f

a c tth a tg a me stam ps w er e dis tr ibu te d natio n- w ide and s o th e “ w inn er s” w er e loc at ed a cr oss the c o u n t ry. 3g ro un ds
.

The five defe ndants filed numer ous pre- trial pleading s to which the g overnme nt 4 responde d, but which do not alway s corr espond chr onologic ally to eac h other. In addition, the pa rt ie s le arn e d a

signif ic ant a mou nt o f i nf or matio n a bo ut e a c h o the rs ’ c a se s in fo rm a lly in conver sation and by

letter. The ref

ore, to c onvey

a sense of the c hronolog y of the pre -trial developments in the c ase, w e have resor ted to sy nthesizi ngthe var ious pleading s and re sponses and summa ri zingthe pa

rt ie s’ po sit ion s. Cha nd le r a nd Pe arl fi le d mo tio ns to d ism iss . Pe arl a lso fi le d a mot ion fo r p art ic ula

rs , 5 adopted by

Chandler. 6 Ve ry ear ly in the pre-trial proce edings, the defendants focused on whether 4 the allegations o f the indictm ent wer e sufficient to state a c rim e. U nder feder al 5
co nspi ra cy

law , the gov er

nm en t m ust a lle ge and p ro ve that the de fe ndants kn ow ing lye nte re d in to an agre em en t to co m m it an unlaw

ful act . United States v. Parker , 839 F. 2d 14 73 (11 Cir. 1988 ). T he indictm ent did allege an unlawful act th in the e m be zz le m en t of

the gam e stam

ps. N ow he re , how ev er , did the ind ic tm en t al le ge that any

of the se de fe ndants knewthat the gam e stam ps they redee m ed had been stolen. T he defendants m oved to d ism iss the ind ictm ent, a lleging that it was fata lly de fe ct ive in its f

ai lur e to a lle ge an e sse nti al e le m en t of the c ri m e of co nspi ra cy

– kn ow ing a gr ee m en t t o c om m it the il le ga l a ct . T he gov er

nm en t r es pond ed

by c onc ed ing that the de fe ndants did not kno w of Jacobson o r the underly ing th eft, but m aintained that su ch knowledge was ir re le vant t o th e de fe ndants ’ c ulp ab ili ty . A rt ic ulatin g it s th eo ry of the c as e, to w hic h it a dhe re d un til the f

ina l m om en ts o f tr ia l, the gov er nm en t a sse rt ed

that theThe g overnme nt made this statement in another defe ndant’s plea

colloquy befor e the 6 mag istrate judg e. 7 fr au di n th i s ca s e w as th e d ef en d an t s ’ re p re s en t at i o n o f t h emse l v es t o Mc Do n al d ’s as “ le git im at e w inn er s. ” S inc e the ind ic tm en t r ep eate dly a lle ge s th at

the d e f e n d an t s “kn e w ” th e y w e r e n o t“l e g i t i ma t e ” w i n n e r s o f th e M c D o n a l d ’s g a me stam ps, the gov er

nm en t arg ue d th at

the ind ic tm en t w as not

de fe ct ive , c onc lud ing : Ther efore, as the fr aud in thi s case w as when the “ winner” stated that they obtained th e gam e piece le git im ate ly , it

is ab sol ute ly

ir re le vant whether the fraudulent “ winner” knew that the gam e piece( s) w as em be zz le d f ro m Mc D ona ld’ s/S im on. ( em pha sis a dde d) In fac t, the governm ent represented to the court that it would not m ake a dif fe re nc e to i ts c as e if

the de fe ndants ha d fou nd t he ir w inn ing

gam e sta m

ps o n th e str ee t. S o c ouns el ed , the c ourt de nie d th e m oti ons to d ism iss
.

6 D ef en dants the n f

ile d am oti on f

or abil l of part ic ulars , a ski ng the gove rn m en t t o de fi ne the te rm s “ le git im at e” and “ ill eg iti m at e” w inn er a s us ed in the ind ic tm en t. T he de fe ndants a sse rt ed that no w he re in the ind ic tm en t w as thi s term defined so that they

had notice why

their claim s to be legitim ate w inners
w er e fr au dul en t. Th e g o v e rn men tr e s p o n d e dth a ti t s i n d i c t men t“ c l e a r l y an du n a mb i g u o u s l y”
u s ed th e t er m s “ l eg i t i m at e” an d“ i l l eg i t i m at e” i n th e c o n t ex to f t h e M cD o n al d ’s ga m e ru le s. T he se gam e ru le s, an e xa m ple of w hic h w as a tta ch ed

to the r es pons eThe c ourt, in g rantingdefe ndants’ motion for a bill of pa rticulars, note d the importance 7 of def ining the te rm “leg itimate” in a cr iminal prosecution and he ld that the g overnme nt’s de fi nit ion wa s b ind ingup on

the m. 8 as an exhibit, required a w inner to state that he had “ obtained my potential
w inn ing gam e stam

p( s) thr ough authori

ze d, le git im ate c hann el

s ” ( em pha sis added). I n th e g o v e rn me n t ’s v i e w , th e r e w e r e o n l y t h r e e w a ys t o o b t a i n ag a me stam p th ro ugh “ au tho ri ze d, le git im at e ch anne ls” – by pur ch as ing af

ood ite m w ith
aw i n n i n g g a me s t a mp a t t a c h e d , b y w r i t i n g t o M c D o n a l d ’s an dr e qu e s t i n g ag a me stam p, or by c utt ing agam e stam

p ou t of am ag az ine or

ne w spa pe r. A lth ough co nc ed ing that no r

ule spe ci fi ca lly

pr ohi bit ed

the tr an sf

er of agam e stam

p f ro m one pe rs on t o anothe r, the gov er nm en t c ont en de d th at

the a cq uis iti on o f a ga m e in this way would not be throu gh an “ authorized, legitim ate channel, ” and, ther efore,
an y sub se que nt c la im

to be a“ le git im at e” w inn er w oul d be c ri m ina lly

f ra udul en t. 7 T he de fe ndants r es pond ed by arg uin g th at

thi s th eo ry

of the f ra ud o n Mc D ona ld’ s w as f

law ed in tw o r es pe ct s. F ir st, it

w as ba se d up on a

pr obl em at ic int er pr et at ionof

the Mc D ona ld’ s gam e ru le s, sin ce tho se r ule s do not

pr ohi bit som eo ne f

ro m r ec ei vin g agam e stam

p f ro m anothe r pe rs on p ri or

to ap pli catio n to Mc D ona ld’ s f

or the pr iz e. S ec ond, the gov er nm en t’ s po sit ionthat de fe ndants ’9

cl ai m s to be le git im at e w inn er s c onst itu te d th e unde rl y ing f ra ud i n th is c as e ap pe ar ed to ch ar ge the de fe ndants w ithanon -c ri m e – vi olatin g th e ru le s of Mc D ona ld’ s gam es . T he de fe ndants f

ile d m oti ons in l im ine arg uin g th at sin ce the ind ic tm en t ch ar ge d asc he m e to e m

be zz le and the n f

ra udul en tly r ed ee m the gam e stam

ps, the gove rn m en t w as r equir ed to pr ove that the de fe ndants knewabout the und er ly ing em be zz le m en t. T he y

a ske d th e co urt t o e xc lud e al l arg um en t tha t de fe ndants co uld be c onvi ct ed

if the y did not kno wof the e m be zz le m en t. The def endants also ask ed the court to exclude the argum ent that a transfer of a gam e stam

p was not perm itted by

the rules, since there w as no such prohibi tion in the publi shed rules. T hey point ed out that th e gam e stam ps were b o t h p ub l i ca l l y an dwi d el y t ra d ed o n th e i n t ern et i n g en er al an do n Mc Do n al d ’s ow n w eb sit e. N one the le ss, the c ourt de nie d th e m oti on. During the ensuing m onth s and in filed pleading s, the defe ndants argued that und er the law , e ven if acquisition of a gam e stam p by transfer from another person vio lated McD onald’s gam e rules, which they did no t concede, it was ce rt ai nly no c ri m e. T he m ag istrate j udge a gr ee d, a dopt ing the w el l- se ttl ed r ule that the r ule s of apr ivate c ont es t are m er e of fe rs f or auni la te ra l c ontra ct , vio la tio n10

of whi ch eit he r vo id s o r br each es th e co nt ract . W aib le v . M

cD onal d’ s C orp. , 935 F. 2d 92 4 (8 Cir. 1991 ).

th T he gov er

nm en t c ount er ed

that de fe ndants w er e not c harg ed w ithvio la tin g the r ule s of Mc D ona ld’ s gam e. N ev er the le ss, the gov er

nm en t c ont inu ed

to m aintain that defendants’ r epresentations to McDonald’ s that they we re

“ legitim ate” w inners wer e sufficient to perm it convictio n for the conspiracy ch arg edin th e in di ct m en t. T hr ee w ee ks p ri or

to tr ia l, the gov er

nm en t f ile d it s own m oti on i n li m ine as kin g th e co urt t o pr ohi bit the de fe ndants f

ro m arg uin g a t tri al that the y

c oul d no t b e c o n v i ct ed o f t h e c h ar g ed co n s p i ra cy u n l es s th ey h ad kn o wl ed g e o f J ac o b s o n ’s the ft of the gam e stam

ps. T he gov er

nm en t a lso sou ght

ar uli ng tha t the de fe ndants ’ a lle ge d m isr ep re se ntatio ns t o M cD ona ld’ s c onst itu te d af ra ud su ffi ci en t t o s up po rt t he ir c on vi ct io n fo r co ns pi racy to c omm it m ai l fr au d. Sp ec if ic al ly , the gov er

nm en t arg ue d th e fo llo w ing : It is ir re le vant tha t a

c onsp ir at or

“ w inn er ” did

not kno wthat the prom otion al gam e piece( s) from McD onald’s had been em bezzled f r o m S i mo n M a rk e t i n g , I n c . ( S i mo n ) o r M c D o n a l d ’s b y J e r o me Ja co bson
. T he ind ic tm en t a lle ge s th at the de fe ndants c onsp ir ed to defraud McD onald’s by

having con spirators falsely claim that they legitim ately

obtained th e w innin g gam e piece( s), that is, that they personally

obtained th e gam e piece f rom a food products wrapper, suc h a s af

ry box or dr ink c up f ro m ane w spa pe r ins er t or pe ri odi ca l, orby requ es ti ng a ga m e p ie ce fr om McDo na ld ’s th ro ug h t he m ai l.On e of the se c o- de fe nd ants wa s Whi tf ie ld’ s a unt, t o who m he g ave a

wi nn ingg ame 8 stamp, g iven to him by

a Jacobson rec ruiter. 11 T he f ac t i s, that a ll of

the “ w inn er s” kno w ing ly f al se ly and fraudulently

claim ed that they

rec eived their winning gam e piece fr om one of the thr ee ( 3) auth or iz ed

m eans. T he re fo re , a s th e fr au d in t h i s c a s e w a s w h e n th e “w i n n e r ” s t a t e dth a tth e y o b t a i n e dth e g a me pie ce le git im at el y , it

is ab sol ute ly

ir re le vant whe the r the f

ra udul en t “ w inn er ” kne wthat the gam e pie ce (s ) w as e m be zz le d f ro m Mc D ona ld’ s/S im on. The governm ent also argued, w ithou t citation to law, that “ [i] t is an inc or re ct state m en t of

the lawf or ade fe ndant t o arg ue that i f the vio la tio n or breach of the c ontest rules of a private gam e is not a state, local or feder al crim e, than ( sic ) the de fe ndants in thi s c as e cannot be f ound gui lty of c onsp ir ac y

to co m m it m ai l f ra ud. ” T hus co unse le d, the dis tr ic t c ourt gr an te d th e m oti on i n lim ine precluding th e defe ndants from arguing that kn owledge of Jacobson’ s theft
w a s e s s e n t i a l t o c o n v i c tth e m o f th e c o n s p i r a c y. B. T he T ria l The tri al co m

m en cedon Aug us t 1 2, 2 00 2, an d l as te d o ve r th ree wee ks
. Som e 23 witnesses testified, including 14 co-defe ndants who had already pled gu il ty to t he all eg edco ns pi racy. Thes e co -d efen da nt s wer e as ke d i f th ey “ kn ew” 8 the y w er e “ doi ng s om ethin g w ro ng” and h ad sub se que ntl y

ple ad gui lty to the ch ar ge d c onsp ir ac y . N ine of the se c o- de fe ndants te sti fi ed that the y ple d gu iltyTh e e vid e nc e wa s th at ov e r 5 0 g ame s w e re pla y e d f ro m 19 79 to t

he tim e of

ind ic tme nt. 9 12 despite the fact that they

did no t know that the gam e stam ps they redee m ed had be ene m be zz le d. T hr ee w itn es se s f

ro m Mc D ona ld’ s and S im on w er e ex te nsi ve ly que sti one d, over defendants’ objec tion, about th e “ rules of the gam e. ” T hese witnesses w ere pe rm itt ed to te sti fy that, und er

the r ule s, the re w er e onl y

thr ee “ au tho ri ze d, le git im at e” w ay s to obt ai n agam e stam p. S inc e the re w er e ove r tw en ty dif fe re nt g a me s p l a ye ddu r i n g th e r e l e v a n tt i me p e r i o d , o v e r tw e n t y d i f

f e r e n ts e t s o f

g a me 9 rules we re a dm itted into evidence. An audio -visual “blow-up” of one set of rules wa s publ ished to th e j ury , over objec tion. Over two hundred other exhibit s wer e adm itt ed , m an y

r eg ar din g th es e ru le s. A t on e poi nt, the c ourt c om m en te d th at

the pol ic y be hin d th e ru le s w as uni m portant b ec au se “ [t ] he r

ule s is w ha t’ s go ing to co nt ro l, i f an yth in g i s g oi ng to co nt ro l.” De fendants contin ually

objec ted to this testim ony , questioning its relevance in the f ac e of the gov er

nm en t’ s a ssuranc es that the y w er e not c harg ed w ith vio la tin g th e ru le s of

Mc D ona ld’ s gam es . D ef en dants arg ue d th at , de spi te the se assurances, the trial w as proceeding on the th eory that violatio ns of the gam e rules co uld sup ply the “ ill eg al a ct ivi ty ” at

the c or e of

the c onsp ir ac y . T his , the y arg ue d, wa s the onlylogical conclusi on to b e drawn from the governm ent’ s repeatedDuringthese proc eeding s, the court e x presse d serious doubt about the c harg es and the 10 proof on more than one oc casion. Midway throug h J acobson’ s testimony , in response to the g ov e rnme nt’ s e lic itatio n o f c o- c on sp ir ator he ars ay , th e c ourt

re mark e d th at: W el l , l etm e s ay

th i s . I ’m s ure th at , Iam p o s i t i v e t h atth er e i s n o ten o u gh evidenc e of a

conspirac y

involving these defe ndants; in fact, ther e is no evidenc e of a c on sp ir a c y

at th is p oint invo lvi ngthe se de fe nd ants . 13 assertions that defendants ’ knowledge of the underly ing illeg al em bezzlem ent was le ga lly ir re le vant t o th ei r cu lpa

bil ity
. T he c ourt, how ev er , c ont inu ed to pe rm it the gove rn m en t t o pr oc ee d inthi s ve in. 10 T he n, a t the c onc lus ionof the gov er

nm en t’ s c as e, de fe ndants m ove d f or j udgm ents of acquittal. T hey asserted that the governm ent had failed to prove that the y a gr ee d to the c harg ed

c onsp ir ac y

– t o r ed ee m

e m be zz le d gam e stam

ps. T he gov er

nm en t r ei te rate d it s th eo ry of the c as e – th at

m isr ep re se ntatio ns t o McD onald’s constituted defendants’ c rim inal fraud in this case, and that de fe ndants c onsp ir ed

w ithJa co bsonto co m

m it thi s f ra ud. T he gov er

nm en t ar gue d: A nd the a gr ee m en t, and I a ske d th at of the se ind ivi dua l w inn er s, w he n ar ec ru ite r ga ve the gam e pie ce to the w inn er , w ha t w as y our agreem ent? W ell, w ith all of thos e defe ndants, the agreem ent is, one, if I ’ m the w inn er , I w ill a gr ee to re pr es en t m y se lf a s th at I have w on this. .
. . [T ] his is a consp iracy
. . . . B y j ust their m aking th at agreem ent . . . that’ s it. T hat’ s all that was nec essary in this case. T he c ourt t ook the m oti ons unde r advis em en t ov er nig ht, and m ove d onto the charge confe rence.Th e g ov e rnme nt c ontin ue d to ma int a in, ho we ve r, that de fe nd ants ’ r e pr e se ntatio ns to 11 McDona ld’s that they

rec eived their

g ame stamps through authorized, leg itimate channe ls were c ri min a lly

fr a ud ule nt. Th e c ourt

ins tr uc te d th e jur

y pr ior to c los ingargume nt. 12 14 T he de fe ndants r eque ste d se ve ra l j ur y ins tr uc tio ns. F ir st, the y

a ske d th e co ur t t o i ns tru ctth e jury tha t m ere v io la ti on of a co nt ract is no t a c riminal off en se . T he gov er

nm en t a gr ee d th at

br ea chof

c ontra ct doe s no t su

ppor t a m ai l f ra ud co nv ic ti on . The co ur t ag reed to gi ve th e in st ru ct io n. N ex t, the de fe ndants r eque ste d an in str uc tio n th at

the y c oul d no t be co nvi ct ed if the y did not kno wof Ja co bson ’ s th ef

t of the gam e stam

ps. T he gove rn m en t ob

j ec te d, r em ind ing the c ourt of it s pr ior r uli ng e xc lud ing thi s de fe nse an d th e co urt de nie d th e ins tr uc tio n. F i n a l l y, th e d e f

e n d a n t s r e qu e s t e dan i n s t r u c t i o n th a tr e c e i p to f

ag a me s t a mp fr om anothe r pe rs on, r athe r than a cquir ing it in som e part ic ular w ay

m en tio ne d in the Mc D ona ld’ s gam e ru le s, is not pr oof of f ra ud o r fr au dul en t i nte nt. T he gove rn m en t a gr ee d th is w as tr ue , and the c ourt gr an te d th e re que st. 11 The next m orning, five m inutes prio r to instructing the j ury , the court 12
an noun ce d th at

it ha d “ que sti ons” about

the gov er

nm en t’ s pr oof

of asin gle co nspi ra cy . T he c ourt st at ed that i t ha d de ci de d, ba se d up on the e vid en ce and argum ent, that unless the defendants kn ewtheir gam e stam ps had beenT h e c o urts a i d th atw i th o u tkn o w l e d g e th atth e g am e s t amp s h a d b e e n“ i mp r o p e r l y” 13 acquir ed that “the issue of a bunc h of conspira cies looms more pre valent.” We a g ree . See di scu ss io n b elo w atI I . B. 15 “ em be zz le d, sto le n, or

oth er w ise unl aw fu lly

a cquir ed ” that the y

c oul d no t be co nvi ct ed of the c onsp ir ac y

a lle ge d inthe ind ic tm en t. I n an a ppare nt e ff

ort t o 13 pr ev en t su chc onvi ct ion s, the c ourt announc ed that i t ha d r ec onsi de re d and w oul d gr an t the de fe ndants ’ r eque ste d j ur y ins tr uc tio n r eg ar din g th e ne ce ssi ty of pr oof of the de fe ndants ’ kno w le dge of Ja co bson ’ s e m

be zz le m en t. T he c ourt f

as hio ne d th e fo llo w ing ins tr

uc tio n: If y ou sho uld find th at a r easonable doub t exists as to whether a defendant had kno wledge that the gam e stam p he obtained h ad been em be zz le d, sto le n or

oth er w ise unl aw fu lly

a cquir ed , the n y ou m

ust f i n dth a td e f

e n d a n tn o tg u i l t y. The governm ent, having its theory of the case – that such kn owledge w as ir re le vant –

tot al ly und one by

thi s in str uc tio n, sou ght

ar ec es s. T he de fe ndants re pr es en t, w ith out

gov er nm en t c ontra dic tio n, that go ve rn m en t c ouns el sou ght the rece ss to tel ep ho ne hi s o ffi ce t o re qu es t p erm is si on to di sm is s t he cas e. U nf ortun at el y

f or a ll, the c ourt r ef

use d th e re ce ss. W e tur n no wto our

e va luatio n of

the se e ve nts in the c ont ex t of de fe ndants ’ allegations of error.16 II. T he m ai l f

ra ud s ta tut e m ak es it

ac ri m e to “ de vis e an y

sc he m e or

art if ic e to de fr au d, or

f or obt ai nin g m one y

or pr ope rty by m eans o f fa lse or

f ra udul en t pr et en se s, r ep re se ntatio ns o r pr om ise s . . . . ” 18 U . S. C. §13 41. T he phr as ing of the statute in the dis

j unctive proh ibits two separate unlawf ul acts, e ach co ns ti tu ti ng an in de pe nd en t g ro un d fo r pr os ecu ti on . U nit ed Sta tes v . Sc ott , 701 F. 2d 1 340, 134 3 ( 11 Ci r. 198 3)
. I n th is c as e, the gov er nm en t c harg ed

a th
co ns pi racy to c omm it bo th un la wfu l ac ts . Fi rs t, the ind ic tm en t c harg ed that de fe ndants c onsp ir ed to de fr au d Mc D ona ld’ s. T he ind ic tm en t a lle ge d th at Ja co bsonand the vari ous de fe ndants part ic ipate d inasc he m e in whic h Ja co bsonw oul d st ea l gam e stam ps f ro m McD onald’s and the defe ndants would redee m them and share the prize m oney w ithJa co bson
. D ef

en dants , the n, w er e ch ar ge d w ithhavin g c onsp ir ed w ith Jacobson to defraud McD onald’s by redee m ing sto len gam e stam ps. Since a co nspi ra cy

is ana gr ee m en t t o c om

m it anil le ga l a ct , it

appe ar ed the gov er

nm en t w o u l dh a v e t o p r o v e th a tth e d e f e n d a n t s kn o w i n g l y a g r e e dt o r e d e e m s t o l e n g a me stam ps. T he gov er

nm en t a lso c harg ed

that de fe ndants c onsp ir ed to obt ai n m one y

by fa lse and f

ra udul en t pr et en se s and r ep re se ntatio ns. T he ind ic tm en t a lle ge d th at theAlthough the re w ere sever al diffe rent g ames a nd numerous ver sions of rules, there was 14 no rule a ny wher e that af

firmatively

prohibited a tra

nsfer of a g ame stamp prior

to verification as a winner
. 17 defendants falsely

repre sented them selves to McDonald’ s as “ legitim ate” w inners i n o r d e r t o o b t a i n th e p r i z e mo n e y. Thus, the governm ent charged a sin gle c onsp ir ac y w ith tw o un law

ful obj ec ts – to ste al the gam e stam

ps, and t o r ed ee m

the m by m isr ep re se ntatio ns am ount ing to c ri m ina l f

ra ud. A. De fendants’ A llegedly Fraudulent Misrepresentations T he ind ic tm en t c harg es that the de fe ndants ’ c onsp ir ed to re pr es en t the m se lve s f

ra udul en tly a s “ le git im at e w inn er s” w he n th ey c he ck ed the box on M c D o n a l d ’s p r i z e r e d e mp t i o n f o rm t o i n d i c a t e th a tth e y o b t a i n e dth e i r g a me stam ps throu gh “ authorized, legitim ate channels.” A lthou gh conceding , that there
w as no r ule that e xpl ic itl y

pr ohi bit ed

the tr an sf

er of the gam e stam

ps, it w as the 14 gove rn m en t’ s po sit ionthat the r ule s a ff irm at ive ly

de m an de d a cquis iti on o f the gam e stam

ps throu gh “ authorized channels” and that thi s m eant in one of the three way s McD onald’s dissem inated the gam e stam ps. Since the defendants obtain ed the ir gam e stam

ps b y tr an sf er f ro m oth er s, the gov er

nm en t r ep eate dly

r ef er re d to the “ lies” the defendants told McDonald’ s by repre senting them selves as

“ le gi ti m at e” wi nn ers .18

Inf ac t, how ev er , the e vid en ce w as , f ro m the gov er

nm en t’ s own w itn es se s, that gam e stam

ps w er e publ ic al ly

tr ad ed , inc lud ing on E -b ay and o n McD onal d’s
ow n w eb sit e . AMc D ona ld’ s r ep re se ntativ e te sti fi ed that gam e play er s c oul d tr an sf er stam ps t o any one – i nc lud ing the str an ge r in the ne xt b ooth – p ri or to se ndi ng the pie ce to Mc D ona ld’ s. U nde r the se c ir cum stanc es , de fe ndants arg ue , it cannot be sa id tha t the r

ule s un equiv oc al ly

pr ohi bit ed

de fe ndants f

ro m r e p r e s e n t i n g th e ms e l v e s a s “l e g i t i ma t e ” w i n n e r s w h e n th e y a c qu i r e dth e i r g a me stam ps bytransfer

from som eone else. W e agre e. In the absence of any explicit prohib ition of transfer , and in v iew of the e vid en ce that su chtr an sf er s w er e publ ic al ly

tol er at ed by Mc D ona ld’ s, onl y if defendants redee m ed gam e stam ps that theyknew w ere stolen c oul d it be sa id une qui voc al ly

that the y kne wthat the y

w er e not “ le git im at e” w inn er s, sin ce it is a crim e to rec eive stolen property
. Absent such proof, w e do not th ink th at re pr es en ta tio ns t o M cD ona ld’ s th at m ayhave vio la te d th e ru le s of it s gam es c oul d fo rm the ba sis f

or ac ri m ina l pr ose cu tio n. D ef en dants ’ c ondu ct

w as not “pla inl y an d u nm is ta kabl y ” p ro sc rib edby 18 U.S.C. § 37 1. See U nited Sta tes v. Porter , 591 F.2d 104 8, 1057 (5 Cir. 1979 ). th T he r ule of le nity r equir es that a

c ri m ina l c onvi ct ionnot

be pr ed ic at ed

upo n a pr obl em at ic int er

pr et at ionand r etro ac tiv e ap pli catio n of the r ule s of apr ivateThe g overnme nt stated in openingrema rks, “[i] n fac t, some of the “w inners” be lieved 15 that the g ame stamp(s) that they rede emed ha d actua lly

been le g itimately

won by someone.” 19 ga m e. Ladner v. U

nited Sta tes , 358 U . S. 169 , 178 ( 1958 ). I f the re is doub t w he the r the de fe ndants ’ c ondu ct is cr im ina l, the r

ule of le nity r equir es that the do ub t b e res ol ve d i n fa vo r of th e acc us ed
. Id

. T hus, the gov er

nm en t di d no t pr ove that the defendants vio lated the rules of McD onald’s gam es or m isrepresented the m se lve s a s le git im at e w inn er s. B. Single or Multiple Conspiracies ? D es pit e ha vin g c harg ed

asin gle c onsp ir ac y

w ithtw o c ri m ina l ob

j ec ts, the g o v ern m en t ’s p ro s ec u t i o n o f t h e c as e s ev er ed th e c o n n ec t i o n b et we en J ac o b s o n ’s ill eg al a ct of e m be zz le m en t and the de fe ndants ’ “ fr au dul en t” r ed em pti ons. T he governm ent’ s posi tion was that it did no t m atter howthe de fe ndants obt ai ne d th e g ame s t amp s . Th e g o v ern m en tas s er t ed o n n u m er o u s o cc as i o n s th at J ac o b s o n ’s the ft of the stam ps w as le ga lly

ir re le vant t o th e cu lpa

bil ity of the de fe ndants f

or the ir r ed em pti ons. T he gov er

nm en t e ve n arg ue d th at

the gam e stam

ps c oul d have be enle git im at el y

obt ai ne d by

som eo ne oth er

than th e ind ivi dua l tha t r ed ee m ed the ga m e stam

p, or e ve n be en foun d on th e street , and the de fe ndants r ep re se ntatio ns 15
w oul d st ill have be enf

ra udul en t. I n th e gove rn m en t’ s vi ew , it w as the de fe ndants ’20

“ m isrepresentations” to McDonald’ s that they we re “ legitim ate” w inners that co ns ti tu te d t he un de rlyin g i ll eg al act iv it y to whi ch th e d efen da nt s ag reed
. T he que sti on n owis w ha t i m pa ct thi s vi ewof

the c onsp ir ac y

ha d on defendants’ conviction s. T he defendants argue that it resulted in a fatal var iance be twee n t he co ns pi racy char ge d i n t he in di ct m en t an d t ha t p ro ve d a t t ria l. D ef en dants c la im

that the und er

the gov er

nm en t’ s th eo ry

of the pr ose cu tio n, not onl y w as Ja co bson ’ s e m

be zz le m en t i rr el ev an t t o pr oof of the c onsp ir ac y , but Ja co bson , him se lf

, be cam e ir

re le vant. T he r es ult

w as that the m ost

the go ve rn m en t m ay

ha ve pro ve d was a se rie s o f co ns pi raci es , no t a s in gl e co ns pi racy. W e turn now to this iss ue. 1. T he Co nspi rator ia l A gr ee m en t A c onsp ir ac y

is ana gr ee m en t be tw ee n tw o or m or e pe rs ons to ac co m pli sh an un law fu l pl an . 18 U . S. C. § 37 1; Parker , 839 F . 2d at 14 77. T he es se nc e o f th e co ns pi racy is t hi s ag reem en t t o c omm it an un la wfu l ac t. Toler , 144 F. 3d at 14 25. Wha t di sti ngui she s th e of fe nse of c onsp ir ac y

f ro m asub stanti ve of fe nse , is that “ ag re em en t i s th e es se nti al e vil a t w hic h th e cr im e of c onsp ir ac y

is directed. ” Ia nne lliv . U

nit ed Sta tes, 420 U . S. 770 , 777 n. 10 ( 1975 ). T he agreem ent itself “ rem ains the essential elem ent of the crim e. ” Id
. T hus the gove rn m en t m

ust pr ove the e xis te nc e of

an agre em en t

to ac hie ve an un law fu lTh e fi na l r e qu ir e me nt f or c onvic tio n is pr oo f o f t

he c omm iss ion

of an a c t in 16 further ance of the c onspiracy . 18 U.S.C. § 371. 21 obj ec tiv e an d th e de fe ndant’ s kn ow ing part ic ipatio n inthat a gr ee m en t. United 16 Sta tes v . A dk

ins on , 15 8 F .3d11 47 , 11 55 (11 Cir . 19 98 ). th Beca use the essential nature of conspiracy is secrec y , a

conspiracy co nv ic ti on m ay

be pro ve d b y

cir cu m st an ti al ev id en ce. Glasser v. United States , 315 U.S . 60, 80 (1942 ). T he governm ent m ust, however, show circum stances fr om w hic h aj ur

y c oul d in fe r be y ond a re as ona ble doubt tha t the re w as a“ m ee tin g of the m inds to com

m it an unlawful act. ” A dk ins on , 158 F . 3d at 11 54 ( quot ing Parker , 839 F. 2d at 147 8). Si nc e no o ne c anbe sa id t o have a gr ee d to ac onsp ir ac y that the y do n ot know exists, proof of kn ow le dge of the ove ra ll sc he m e is c ri tic al to a fi ndi ng o f co nspi rator ia l i nte nt. “

N obody is lia ble in co nspi ra cy

e xc ep t f or the f ai r im port of the concerted purpose or agreem ent as he understands it.” U nit ed Sta tes v . P eo ni , 100 F. 2d 4 01, 403 ( 2 Ci r. 193 8)
. T he gov er nm en t, the re fo re , m

ust pr ove be y ond nd
a re as ona ble doubt t

ha t the c onsp ir ac y

e xis te d, that the de fe ndant knewabout it
an d t ha t h e v ol un ta ril y

ag reed to joi n i t. United States v. H ernandez , 896 F . 2d 513, 519 (11 Cir. 1990 ).

th22

W e ha ve r ev er se d c onsp ir ac y c onvi ct ion s w he re the re w as no d ir ec t pr oof of
ana gr ee m en t, and the c ir cum stanti al e vid en ce of a gr ee m en t w as ins uf

fi ci en t t o su pp or t s uc h a n i nf

eren ce. Adkin so n, 158 F.3d at 1159 (re versing cons piracy co nvi ct ion s w he re gov er

nm en t f ai le d to pr ove de fe ndants kno w ing ly a gr ee d to unlawful act) ; U

nit ed Sta tes v . A wa n , 966 F . 2d 1 415, 143 4- 35 ( 11 Ci r. 199 2) th (i nsuf fi ci en t e vid en ce to supp ort f ind ing of unl aw fu l a gr ee m en t) ; Parker , 839 F . 2d at 147 8 ( ins uf

fi ci en t e vid en ce of

c om m on a gr ee m en t)
. P ro of

of atr ue a gr ee m en t is the onl y

w ay to pr ev en t i ndi vid

ua ls who are not

a ct ua lly m em be rs of the gr oup fro m be in g s wep t i nt o t he co ns pi rat or ia l n et . Inthi s c as e, the ind ic tm en t c harg ed asin gle c onsp ir ac y

in w hic h Ja co bson wa s the “ key

m an” w ho sto le the gam e stam ps and then constructed a vast network of c o- co nspi rator s w ho w oul d bo th r ed ee m the gam e stam

ps and r ec ru it oth er s to do s o. T o c onvi ct

the de fe ndants of

thi s c onsp ir ac y , the gov er nm en t ha d to pr ove th atth e d efen da nt s k ne w of t he “ es se nt ia l n atur e o f th e p la n” an d a gr eedto it
. See Blum enthal v. U

nited Sta tes , 332 U . S. 539 , 557 ( 1947 ); Adkin so n, 158 F.3d at 11 55 . 2. Wha t the G ove rn m en t P ro ve d a bout the A gr ee m en t Ther e ar e no allegations in th e indictm ent that any of these defendants knew of Ja co bson ’ s pl anto ste al the gam e stam ps and d istri but e the m

to a va st arr ay

ofThe de fenda nts did not controvert this evidence beca use lac k of knowledg e, and 17 there fore , lack of

ag ree ment, formed the core of their de fense
. 23 re cr uit er s and w inn er s. T he re are non e be ca use Ja co bsonde lib er at el y se t ou t t o keep the fact that ther e w as any overall schem e secr et from the defendants. I n fa ct , the gov er

nm en t c onc ed ed

in its ope nin g r em ar

ks, “ [e ] vid en ce w ill e sta

bli sh,
w hic h w ill be unc ontro ve rt ed by the de fe nse , that m an y

of the w inn er s di d no t know that the winning g am e stam ps(s) that they

redee m ed had originallybeen em be zzl edor s to le n.” 17 A t tri al , Ja co bsonte sti fi ed that he ha d te n di ff

er en t r ec ru ite rs to w hom

he g a v e g a me s t a mp s . T h e s e r e c r u i t e r s i n turn f

o u n d“w i n n e r s ” t o r e d e e m th e g a me stam ps. Ja co bsonte sti fi ed

that not one of

his r ec ru ite rs kne wany

of the oth er s, or ev enabout

his the ft of the stam ps. N or did any of the w inn er s kn owof

Ja co bson , o r h i s e mb e z z l e me n to f

th e g a me s t a mp s . I tw a s p a rto f J a c o b s o n ’s s c h e me deliberately

to keep each re cruiter and the winners developed byeach r ecruiter se parate f ro m and i gnor an t of

the e xis te nc e of

the oth er s. Ja co bson ’ s sc he m e w as ac la ssi c “ hub- an d- spok e” c onsp ir ac y , in w hic h a ce ntr al c or e of

c onsp ir at or s r ec ru its se parate gr oups of c o- co nspi rator s to c ar

ry out th e v ari ou s fu nc ti on s o f th e il le ga l en te rp ris e. See Kotteakos v. United States , 328 U . S. 750 , 755 ( 1946 ); United States v. P erez , 489 F. 2d 51 , 58 (5 Cir. 1973 ). In th24

suc h ac onsp ir ac y , the c or e co nspi rator s are the hub and e ac h gr oup of c oco ns pi rat or s fo rm

a sp ok e le ad in g o ut fro m th e cen te r in di ffer en t d ire ct io ns . Ko tte ak os , 328 U. S. at 755. T he core c onsp irators m ove from spoke to s poke, di rect in g t he fun ct io ns of t he co ns pi racy. Id
. Ja co bson ’ s c onsp ir ac y

a lso ha d ahub and s poke s. H e w as the hub and h is re cr uit er s and w inn er s f

orm ed the vari ous spok es . U nli ke the c la ssi c hub- an dspok e conspiracy , how ever, Jacobson was the onl yc onsp ir at or

in the hub , and when he m oved from

spoke to s poke, he m oved alone. T here w as no tim e at which he and another conspirator m oved from spoke to s poke. T he S upr em e Co urt ha s c hara ct er iz ed suc h ac onsp ir ac y

a s a“ ri m le ss whe el ” b ecau se th ere i s n o ri m to co nn ectth e sp ok es in to a si ng le sch em e. Ko tte ak os , 328 U . S. a t 75 5. I n Ko tte ak os , se ve ra l di ff

er en t de fe ndants fr au dul en tly

obt ai ne d lo an s th ro ugh the c en tr al ke y m an , Br ow n. T he re w as , how ev er , no c onne ct ion between the de fe ndants . T he y w er e co nne ct ed

onl y to Br ow n. T he tr ia l c ourt ha d up he ld the j ur y ’ s c onvi ct ion s of

the se de fe ndants on the the or y that “ it w as pos sib le on the e vid en ce f or the j ur y to co nc lud e that a ll
w er e in a c om m on a dve nture be ca

use of [ ea chde fe ndant’ s c onne ct ionto Br ow n in one or m or e tr an sa ct ion s] and the sim ilari ty of pur pose pr es en te d inthe vari ous applications for loans.” Id
. a t 76 8- 69.25

T he S upr em e Co urt, how ev er , r ev er se d th e co nvi ct ion s, hol din g th at the tr ia l c ourt “ co nf

use [d ] the c om

m on p ur pose of a sin gle e nte rp ri se w iththe se ve ra l, thou gh sim ilar, purposes o f num erous separate a dventu res of like char acter .” Id
. at 769 . A s th e Co urt pu t i t: [T ] he pa tte rnw as ‘ that of se parate spo ke s m ee tin g a t a c om m on ce nte r, ’ tho ugh w e m ay

a dd w ith out

the r im of the w he el to en cl ose the spok es. The proof ther efore adm ittedly m ade out a case, not of a singl e conspiracy , but of severa l, notwithstanding only one was ch ar ge d inthe ind ic tm en t. Id
. a t 75 5. T hus, w he re the “ spok es ” of ac onsp ir ac y

have no know le dge of

or co nne ct ionw ithany

oth er , de al ing ind ep en de ntl y w iththe hub c onsp ir at or , the re is no t a s in gl e co ns pi racy, but rat he r as m an y co ns pi raci es as t he re ar e sp ok es . Id
. at 75 4- 55 . Re ce ntl y , the F ourth C ir cu it ap pli ed Ko tte ak os to affir m the dism issal of an in di ct m en t ch arg in g a si m il ar ri m le ss whee l co ns pi racy. D ic ks on v . M ic ros oft Co rp. , 309 F . 3d 1 93, 203 ( 4 Ci r. 200 2)
. T he c ourt no te d th at Ko tte ak os m ad e th clear that a rim less wheel c onsp iracy is not a sing le, general conspiracy but ins tead is a se ri es of m ult ipl e co nspi ra ci es be tw ee n th e co m m on d ef en dant and e ac h of

the ot he r de fen da nt s. Id

. “ A r im le ss whe el c onsp ir ac y is one in w hic h vari ous de fe ndants e nte r int o se parate a gr ee m en ts w ithac om m on d ef en dant, but

w he re the26

de fe ndants have no c onne ct ionw ithone anothe r, oth er than th e co m

m on defendant’ s invo lvem ent in each transaction.” Id
. W e too have noted “ [t] he im portance in a w heel ty

pe conspiracy

of such knowledge by

indiv idual spo kes of the existence of other spokes.” Pe rez , 489 F. 2d at 60 n. 11 ( ci tin g Fe deral Treatment of Multiple Consp iracies , 57 C olu m bia L awRe vie w387 ). “ [F ] or aw he el c onsp ir ac y

to ex ist , tho se pe opl e w ho f orm the
w he el ’ s sp oke s m

ust have be en aw are and m

ust do s om ethin g inf

urthe ranc e of som e single, illegal enterprise. If not, there is no rim

to enclose the spok es.” U nit ed Sta tes v . L ev ine , 54 6 F .2d65 8, 6 63 (5 Cir . 19 77 ) (em ph as is ad de d)
. See th als o U nit ed Sta tes v . A brah am , 541 F . 2d 1 234, 123 8 ( 7 Ci r. 197 6) ( the part ie s to th an agreem ent m

ust kn ow of e ach other’ s existence). W e ha ve r ev er se d c onvi ct ion s w he re suc h kn ow le dge w as la ck ing , f ind ing no agreem ent to the overall conspi racy , and ho lding that the indiv idual spo kes co ns ti tu te d s ep arat e co ns pi raci es . U nit ed Sta tes v . E lli

s , 709 F . 2d 6 88, 690 ( 11 th Ci r. 198 3) ; United States v. N ettles , 570 F . 2d 5 47, 551 ( 5 Ci r. 197 8) ; Le vi ne , 546 th F. 2d at 663
. W e have never upheld a conspiracy conviction wher e a single key
m an m oved alone from

spoke to s poke, agree ing with no o ne else com m on to m ore than one sp oke.27

Inthi s c as e, the re w as no c onne ct ionw ha tso ev er be tw ee n th e vari ous spok es of Ja co bson ’ s sc he m e. Jus t a s w ithBr ow n in Ko tte ak os , Ja co bsonw as the onl y pe rs on c om

m on t o th e te n othe rw ise c om ple te ly se parate und er

takin gs, no other person m ovin g with him from spoke to s poke. T he governm ent conceded earl y on and at tri al that the spo ke s kn ewnothin g a bout e ac h othe r or , ind ee d, ab out Ja co bson ’ s th ef

t of the gam e stam

ps and h is o ve ra ll sc he m e. Ja co bson , him se lf , so t es tif ie d. I n th e fa ce of

thi s f ac t, the gov er

nm en t t ook the onl y

pos iti on i tc o u l d– th a ts u c h kn o w l e d g e wa s i rr e l e v a n tt o p r o o f o f th e c h a r g e dc o n s p i r a c y. This w as err or of constituti onal propo rtions. In order to prove the charged co nspi ra cy , the gov er

nm en t ha d to sho wthat the de fe ndants kne wand a gr ee d to s o me s c h e me l a r g e r

th a n th e i r

o w n s p o k e , i n v o l v i n g o n l y r e c e i p to f ag a me s t a mp fro m th ei r imm ed ia te recrui te r an d i ts “ il le gi ti m at e” re de m pt io n. Ia nne lli , 420 U . S. a t 77 7; Toler , 144 F . 3d at 14 25. W ith out e vid en ce of

an a gr ee m en t t o participate in the larger schem e char ged in the ind ictm ent, the governm ent proved onl y that the re m ay

have be enm

ult ipl e co nspi ra ci es , e ac h w ithJa co bsona s th e unkn ow n ke y

m an , the r ec ru ite r an d, ha d th ey kno w n of

Ja co bson ’ s th ef

ts, the red eem ers . See B arna rd v. U nited Sta tes , 342 F . 2d 3 09, 312 -1 3 ( 9 Ci r. 196 5) th (w ith out som e ev ide nc e that i ndi vid ua l sp oke s kn ewabout

oth er s, the re w as not

a co nspi ra cy

f or asuc ce ssi on o f fr au dul en t c oll isi ons, but r athe r a suc ce ssi on o fThe g overnme nt employ ed a similar tac tic in Parker . Unable to pr ove that the 18 defe ndants knew of

the over all scheme , the g overnme nt argued “e ven if a ppellants truly

wer e un awa re of the [ove ra ll f

ra ud ule nt s c he me ], it

do e s n ot f

oll owthat th e ir

re pr e se ntatio ns to inv e sto rs we re no t f

ra ud ule nt. ” 83 9 F .2 d at 14 80 . In th at c a se , w e de c ide d th at th e a pp e lla nts ’ repr esentations were not “ wholly unfounded” and “c erta inly not criminal.” Id. at 1 4 8 1 . We rea ched a simil ar c onclusion above. 28 se parate c oll isi on c onsp ir ac ie s) ; U nit ed Sta tes v . V

are lli , 407 F. 2d 73 5 (7 Cir. th 1969 ) (r ev er sin g c onvi ct ionw he re ins uf fi ci en t e vid en ce that si m ilar hij ac kin gs part of one overall conspiracy ). T h e s h i f to f f o c u s f r o m J a c o b s o n ’s s c h e me t o e mb e z z l e an dr e d e e m g a me stam ps to m ultip le schem es to m ake fa lse statem ents to McDonald’ s represented the gov er nm en ts’ a cknow le dgm en t tha t i t c oul d no t pr ove that the de fe ndants kne wof and j oin ed

Ja co bson ’ s sc he m e. I n th e ab se nc e of any pr oof to co nne ct

the spok es of the conspiratorial whee l, both Jacobson and his em bezzlem ent wer e abandoned as central to the prosecution ’ s case. 18 T his w ill not

do. A lth oughthe de fe ndants ’ a lle ge d m isr ep re se ntatio ns t o M c D o n a l d ’s mi g h th a v e c o n s t i tu t e da c t s i n f u rt h e r a n c e o f

th e c h a r g e dc o n s p i r a c y, pr oof of suc h m isr ep re se ntatio ns alo ne does not p rove they j oined th e conspiracy in di ct edby the gra nd jury to em be zzl e an d fr au du le nt ly redee m th e g am e st am

ps . Wh i l e as i n g l e c o n s p i r a c y ma y h a v e tw o i l l e g a l o b j e c t s , w i t h o u tp r o o f

o f s o me co nne ct ion betwee n these objects, it is not a sin gle c o n s p i r a c y.29

T he T hir d C ir cu it re ac he d asim ilar co nc lus ionin United States v. P ea rls te in , 576 F. 2d 53 1, 544 (3d Cir. 1978 ). In that case, a j ury convicted sa le sm enof

m ai l f ra ud b as ed on the ir a lle ge d part ic ipatio n inac onsp ir ac y to defraud investors in a writing pen distrib utorshi p. While conceding th e existence of an ov er al l sc he m e to d ef ra ud, the sa le sm enm ai nta ine d th at the y w er e ign or an t it. I n th e ab se nc e of

any dir ec t pr oof

that the y did kno wof the sc he m e, the gove rn m en t so ught

to co nvi ct

the de fe ndants ba se d onc er ta in f al se or m isl ea din g state m en ts m ad e by

the m in the ir sa le s pi tc he s, arg uin g th at the se state m en ts es ta bli she d th e ne ce ssary

li nk b etw ee n th em

and the ove ra ll sc he m e to d ef ra ud. T he T hir d C ir cu it re

j ec te d th is arg um en t and r ev er se d th ei r co nvi ct ion s, not ing that: [A ] lth oughthe de fe ndants m igh t have m ad e fr au dul en t m isrepresentations du ring the course of their individ ual sales presentations, the j ury

could no t reasonably

infer that the salesm en knew of the f

raudulent pu rpose of the overall .
. . schem e. Id
. A t 54 5. Furthe rm or e, the c ourt r ej ec te d th e ide a that the se m isr ep re se ntatio ns c oul d form the som e sort of independent basi s for their conspiracy conviction s because

“ [a ] lth ough
. . . ase parate sc he m e to d ef ra ud c oul d have be enha tc he d by the se30

salesm en within the overall schem e, such indi vidu al schem es we re neither a lleged nor proved bythe governm ent in this case. ” Id
. T he c ourt no te d th at : E ve n if the e vid en ce e sta

bli she d in de pe nde nt s ch em es of the sa le sm en , suc h e vid en ce c oul d no t pr ope rl y c onvi ct the de fe ndants he re s in ce t he on ly sch em e al le ge d i n t he in di ct m en t was th atof t he
. .

. pr inc ipa ls, and it wa s in cu m be nt u pon the G ov ernm en t t o pr ov e tha t sc he m e subs tan tia llyas i t w as a lle ge d. Id
. n. 7 ( em pha sis a dde d) ; see also Toler , 144 F . 3d at 14 26 ( “ [T ] he gov er nm en t m ust prov e the conspiracy

it charged in the indictm ent rather than som e other conspiracy ”). In U nit ed Sta tes v . Sim on , 83 9 F .2d14 61 , 14 68 (11 Cir . 19 88 ), we th acknowledged the persuasiveness of the P ea rls te in r ule that i ndi vid

ua l and ind ep en de nt m isr ep re se ntatio ns d o no t pe rm it aninf er en ce of kno w le dge of

and ag re em en t t o j ointhe ove ra ll sc he m e. I f the de fe ndants have no know le dge of the ove ra ll co nspi ra cy , the ir

ind ep en de nt, e ve n f

ra udul en t, m isr ep re se ntatio ns d o no t su pp ly tha t l in k. Id

. Inthi s c as e, it

w as the gov er

nm en t’ s po sit ionf

ro m the be gin nin g th at

the d ef en d an t s ’ al l eg ed m i s re p re s en t at i o n s we re t o t al l y i n d ep en d en to f J ac o b s o n ’s unde rl y ing sc he m e. T he gov er nm en t c onsi ste ntl y

m ai nta ine d, and arg ue d to the j ur y , that the de fe ndants ’ c la im s to be “ le git im at e” w inn er s w er e fa lse tot al lyTh e g ov e rnme nt’ s c la im that Jac ob so n’ s th e ft of the g ame sta

mps wa s le g a lly 19 ir re le va nt t o d e fe nd ants ’ c ulp a

bil ity fo r t he ov e ra ll c on sp ir a c y

c ha rg e d in the ind ic tme nt r e a lly turned the c ase on its hea d. In fac t, it was defe ndants’ alleg ed misrepr esentations to McDonald’s that w e re , in

fa c t, l e g a lly

ir re le va nt t o th e ir c ulp a bil ity fo r t he c ha rg e d c on sp ir a c y . D e fe nd ants ’ re de mpt ion s w ou ld h ave be e n c ri min a lly fr a ud ule nt e ve n w ith out any

mis re pr e se ntatio ns had they k nown that the gamestamps were stolen. Wit hout such knowledg e, no amount of repr esentations viol atingMcDona ld’s rules could make defe ndants liable for the conspira cy char g ed by

the g overnme nt to fraudulently rede em stolen g ame stamps. See U nited States v. Chr isto , 614 F.2d 486, 492 ( 5 Cir. 1980) (evide nce of violations of civil banking r egulation th leg ally irrele vant to defe ndant’s guilt for criminal bank f raud)
. 31 irrespective of Jac obso n’ s em bezzlem ent. T he defendants’ claim s wer e

19 cri m in al ly fraud ul en t, t he go ve rn m en t i ns is te d, sol el ybe ca use the y r ec ei ve d th e stam ps b y tr an sf er , r athe r than by

buy ing f ood ite m s a t M cD ona ld’ s. D ef en dants ’
m isr ep re se ntatio ns, the n, w er e m ad e “ on the ir ow n, ” w ith out

any kno w le dge of Ja co bson ’ s e m

be zz le m en t and s ch em e. A s su chthe y w er e utt er ly

inc ap ab le of perm itting any

inference that defendants knew of and agree d to the charged co ns pi racy. Se e P ea rls te in , 576 F . 2d at 54 5; Sim on , 839 F . 2d at 14 68. W ith out som e ev ide nc e that de fe ndants kne wthe e sse nti al na tur e of Jacobson ’s conspiracy , they could no t be convicted of agreeing to it. T he trial j udge belatedlyrea lized this fund am ental fac t when, five m inutes before ins tr uc tin g th e j ur

y , he de ci de d to giv e the de fe nse ins tr uc tio n pr ev iou sly

r ej ec te d, requiring the jury

to find that the defendants k new of Jacobson ’ s schem e before co nvi ct ing the m . I n so doi ng h e sa id:32

A nd I ’ ll poi nt o ut tha t I thi nk o ne of the m aj or

iss ue s is w he the r or no t we’re d eal in g wi th a si ng le co ns pi racy or m ul ti pl e co ns pi raci es . .

. . I a m goi ng t o in str

uc t the j ur

y in thi s c as e that i f y ou s houl d f ind that a rea sonable do ubt exist s as to whether a defendant had know le dge that the gam e stam p he obt ai ne d ha d be ene m be zz le d, stolen or oth erw ise unlawfully acquired, then y ou m

ust find th at de fe ndant n ot g uil ty . I thi nk o the r – othe rw ise , the n y ou – the iss ue of abun chof

c onsp ir ac ie s lo om s m or e pr ev al en t. T hus, the c ourt r ec ogni ze d and atte m pte d to c ur e the vari an ce be tw ee n th e co nspi ra cy

c harg ed in the ind ic tm en t, and the se ve ra l c onsp ir ac ie s th e gove rn m en t soug ht to prov e at tria l by requiring the jury

to find that the defendants h ad knowledge of Jacobson ’ s em bezzlem ent. O nly

in this way

could the jury

find thatUnfortunately , the cour t’s attempt to cure the problem only ag g ravated it. The cour

t’s 20 new instruction per

mitted the jury

to find the defe ndants guilty if they knew the g ame stamps wer e “e mbezz led, stolen, or otherwise unlawful ly acquired. ” This languag e is not found in the indictment. Although the g overnme nt argues that it narr owed r ather than broa dened the indictment, thus render ing the err or har mless, we disagree . The g overnme nt’s theory throug hout the case , ref

lected in the e x tensive testimony and numerous exhibits about the rule s of McDona ld’s g ames, wa s that the defe ndants had “ ill e g iti mate ly” re de e me d th e se g ame sta mps by vir tue of the fa c t th at th e y

did no t pe rs on a lly a c qu ir e the m f

ro m Mc Do na ld’ s. Th e g ov e rnme nt i nte rp re te d th e ru le s o f M c Do na ld’ s g ame s to pr oh ibi t a c qu isi tio n o f t

he g ame sta

mps by tr ans fe r f ro m ano the r p e rs on . In c los ingargume nt, the g overnme nt argued that ac quisiti on of the g ame stamp by transfe r made the winner “illeg itimate,” there by

imply ing that acquisition in thi s way was “ unlawful.” Thus the go v ern m en t ’s ar gum en tt i edth e c o urt ’s un wi t t i n g ad d i t i o no f “ un l aw fu l l y ac qu i re d ” l an gu age into the gove rnment’s theor y that transfe r of the g ame stamps made the winner s “illeg itimate.” F ur the rm or e , in

re butta l, t

he g ov e rnme nt a

rgue d th at on e de fe nd ant k ne w h is g ame sta

mp wa s “ un lawf

ull y a c qu ir e d” be c a

us e he wa s a sk e d to re de e m it fo r s ome on e wh o w ante d to avo id splitt ing the proce eds with his soon-to-be divorc ed wife . This argument could not have be en made if the court’s instruc tion had require d the jury to find defe ndants knew the g ame stamps wer e embe zz led or stolen. 33 th e d efen da nt s k no win gl y ag reed to pa rti ci pa te in th e o ve ral l s ch em e. As we 20
sa id i n A dk

ins on : T he gov er

nm en t m ay

not r es t up on p ro of

that a de fe ndant a ct ed

in a w a y th a two u l dh a v e f

u rt h e r e dth e g o a l s o f

th e c o n s p i r a c y if the re had been one. W ith out

som e ind ep en de nt e vid en ce that the se de fe ndants knewthe re w as a[ ] c onsp ir ac y in pr ogr es s and tha t the y vol unt ar ily an d kn ow ing ly

j oin ed thi s c onsp ir ac y , the pr oof of the r equis ite ag re em en t t o [ co m

m it the of fe nse ] is ins uf

fi ci en t. 158 F. 3d at 11 55. T he abse nc e of

any e vid en ce of

ac om m on g oa l, ove rl ap pin g m em be rs hip
am ong th e various spok es of the conspiracy , or interdependence of the spokes rei nf or ces ou r co nc lu si on th atth e g ov ern m en t fa il edto pro ve a si ng le co ns pi racy.34

First, althoug h each of these a lleged spok e conspiracies had the sam e goal, ther e wa s no eviden ce that this was a co m m on goa l. A lth oughe ac h sp oke dir ec te d it s ef fo rt s to w ar d th e goa l of

r ed ee m ing gam e stam

ps f or m one y , the re w as no evidence, indeed the governm ent conceded, that no spoke was aw are that it was pa rti ci pa ti ng in an yth in g l arg er t ha n i ts own red em pt io ns . Se e B arna rd , 342 F . 2d at 313 (reversing convictio ns for single cons piracy wher e no evidence showed that the indiv idual plann ing of five separate a ccidents contem plated m ore than that particular one). T here w as certainly no evidence that they

agree d to do so. E ach spok e re presented a separate schem e, j oined byno overall objective to be ac hieved by m ul ti pl e act io ns . See P erez , 489 F . 2d at 62 . Inor de r to p ro ve asin gle , uni fi ed c onsp ir ac y

a s op pose d to ase ri es of sm aller, uncoordin ated conspiracies, the governm ent m ust sh ow an in te rd ep en de nc e am on g t he all eg edco -co ns pi rat or s. Toler , 14 4 F .3dat 1 42 6. Se parate tr an sa ct ion s are not ne ce ssari ly

se parate c onsp ir ac ie s, so l ong as the co nspi rator s a ct

in co nc er t

to fur th er a co m

m on go al
. U

nit ed Sta tes v . P ow el l , 982 F. 2d 1 422 (1 0 Ci r. 199 2)
. I f the re is one ove ra ll ag re em en t am ong the vari ous

th part ie s to pe rf

orm dif fe re nt f unc tio ns i n or de r to c ar

ry out the obj ec tiv es of

the co ns pi racy, the n t ho se pe rfo rm in g t he fun ct io ns are en ga ge d i n o ne co ns pi racy.In a drugconspirac y , in which the objec t of the conspira cy is clear ly illega l and there 21 ar e v ar i o u s cl an d es t i n e f

un ct i o n s t o p er fo rm , th e c o n s p i ra t o rs ca nb e c h ar gedwi thkn o wl ed ge that others ar e per formingthese diff ere nt functions. See U

nited States v. Bruno , 105 F.2d 921 (2d Cir. 1938). In this case, howe ver, suc h knowledg e may not be imputed to defe ndants since eac h of their r edemptions was c omplete unto itself. 35 “ [I ] f a de fe ndant’ s a ct ion s f ac ili ta te d th e en de av or s of oth er c oc onsp ir at or s or fac ili tat ed

the v en tur e as a wh ole ,” th en a si ng le co ns pi racy is s ho wn. Id
. a t 14 29. Inthi s c as e, the re w as no s uc h in te rd ep en de nc e of the spo ke s. T he co m bin ed e ff orts o f the spo ke s w er e not r equir ed to ins ur e the suc ce ss o f the ve nture . N o sp oke de pe nde d up on, w as a ide d by , or ha d any int er es t i n th e suc ce ss o f the oth er s. E ac h sp oke a ct ed ind ep en de ntl y

and w as an e nd unto itself. T he actions of one spo ke did no t facilitate the e ndeavors of other 21 coconspi rators or the venture as a whole. W e have re versed conspiracy co nv ic ti on s wh ere n o i nt erd ep en de nc e was sh own . Se e E lli s , 709 F . 2d at 69 0 ( no ev ide nc e pe rm itt ing inf

er en ce that sp oke s kn ew

of e ac h othe r or

int er ac te d inany w ay ); Nettles , 570 F. 2d at 551 (sam e). N or w as the re any

e vid en ce of

an ov er la p of m em be rs hip be tw ee n th e spok es. Ther e w as none. T he only m em ber com m on to each separate spoke wa s Ja co bson
. T he gov er

nm en t’ s arg um en t i n it s br ie f notw ith standi ng, asin gle co ns pi racy is n ot sh own if J aco bs on was t he on ly ove rlapp in g m em be r. A dk ins on , 15 8 F .3dat 1 15 3 (“ The go ve rn m en t m us t p ro ve an ag reem en t b et ween at l eas t t wo36

co nspi rator s to pur sue j oin tly an il le ga l ob

j ec tiv e” ); Parker , 839 F . 2d at 14 78 (“ T he lawis w el l se ttl ed

that e xis te nc e of

ac oc onsp ir at or

is not onl y an e le m en t of the crim e, but the very

essence of the c rim e”). All the evidence, especially that from the governm ent’ s own witnesses, wa s th atev ery effo rt wa s m ad e n ot to pu t a r im on th e whe el of J aco bs on ’s con sp ira cy . N ot o nly w as the re no c onne ct ionbe tw ee n th e spok es , but the spo ke s ha d no kn owl ed ge of t he hu b. Th is is no t a s in gl e co ns pi racy. Ko tte ak os , 328 U. S. at 76 9. If c on sp ira to ria l, i t i s a s eri es of u nc ha rg edsep arat e co ns pi raci es . See P ea rls te in , 576 F . 2d at 54 5. The governm ent argues that this variance betwe en the conspiracy charged
an d t he pro of

at t ria l i s h arm le ss erro r. Ko tte ak os , 328 U . S. a t 72 5. T he r em ai nin g questio n is whether the var iance in the proof prej udiced the defendants. T here c an be no d oubt

that i t di d. A s in A dk

ins on , the governm ent alleged conduct no t a cr im e, spent hou rs el ic iti ng t es tim ony

r eg ar din g th at

“ cr im e, ” onl y

to co nc ed e to the c ourt a t the e nd of tr ia l tha t the laww as to the c ontrary . A s th en , “ [d ] ef en dants w er e fo rc ed

to de fe nd the m se lve s a ga ins t c harg es w hic h w er e not of fe nse s un de r the pr ev ai lin g law . ” 135 F . 3d at 13 73. D ef en dants he re in w er e fo rc ed to de ci de w he the r toInduced, of course , by

the g overnme nt’s motion in l imine reque sting such a ruling , and 22 c o un s e l e d b y th e g o v e r

n m e n tth ats u c hkn o w l e d g e w a s i r r e l e v an tun d e r

th e g o v e r n m e n t ’ s th e o r

y. Indeed, a s we noted a

bove, the g overnme nt sought a rec ess to call the Justi ce 23 Depa rtment for pe rmission to di smiss t he ca se. 37 de fe nd a ga ins t or

not de fe nd a ga ins t the c harg e that the y vio la te d th e ru le s – pr eci se ly wha t t he rig ht to in di ct m en t was m ean t t o p rev en t. Id
. T he n, a t the c onc lus ionof atr ia l f ill ed w ithe vid en ce of

the se r ule s, the dis tr ic t c ourt de ci de d th at thi s w as not

w hat the tr ia l ha d be enabout , and tha t the onl y unl aw fu l c ondu ct

upo n w hic h c onvi ct ion s law fu lly c oul d have be enba se d a ll al ong w as the c harg ed

c onsp ir ac y

to redeem stolen gam e stam ps. T he court de ci de d it m ust giv e the pr ev iou sly

r ej ec te d pr opos ed

de fe nse ins tr

uc tio n to thi s effe ct. Thus, the court announ ced it w ouldinstruct the jury that they could conv ict o n l y i f th e y fo u n dth a tth e d e f

e n d a n t s r e d e e medg a me s t a mp s th a tth e y knewwe re

“ em bezzled , stolen , or unlaw ful ly acquired
. ” T his ins tr uc tio n, announc ed

by the co urt f ive m inu te s pr ior

to ch ar gin g th e j ur

y , c om ple te ly r ev er se d th e co urt’ s pr ior posi tio n th at

suc h kn ow le dge w as unn ec es sary f or c onvi ct ion , r en de re d to ta lly

22 irrelevant m ost of the gov ernm ent’ s case, and left totally exposed th e utter absence of any suc h pr oof

in the r ec or d. 23 D es pit e the c ourt’ s in str

uc tio ns t o th e j ur

y that the y c oul d no t c onvi ct

abse nt pr oof that de fe ndants kno w ing ly a gr ee d to the c harg ed

c onsp ir ac y , that the y

c oul dThe g overnme nt’s only theory of culpa bility capa ble of withstandingthe test for 24 rele vance imposed by

the cour t’s ultimate jury

instructions was that the def endants showe d a “re ckless disreg ard” for the tr uth by failingto ask the rig ht questions reg ardingthe orig in of the g ame stamps. Sufficie nt evidence of such a rec kless disreg ard w ould support a jury infere nce that th e de fe nd ants sh ou ld h av e k no wn of the unlaw ful orig in of their g ame stamps, thus permitting c onviction. Parker , 8 39 F .2 d 1 47 9; United States v. Sawye r , 799 F.2d 1494, 1401- 02 (11 Cir. 1986). Althoug h the g overnme nt propounded this argument, it offer ed little but th speculation to support it . We find nothing in the e vidence that would permit an infe renc e beyond a re a so na ble do ub t th at th e de fe nd ants re c kle ssl y dis re g ard e d s tr on gind ic atio ns that th e ir rede mptions were unlawful . On the contr ary , the evidenc e wa s that the defe ndants wer e repe atedly

told there wa s nothing unlaw ful about their r edemptions. They wer e told various stories reg ardingthe nee d for their rede mptions, rang ing f

rom hiding the proce eds fr om divorced or div or c ingwi ve s, to a idi ngMc Do na ld’ s in maximizin gthe g e ogra

ph ic a l di ve rs ity

of wi nn e rs , to avoiding tax es by

findingwinners in lower income tax bracke ts. W hateve r the illegitimacyof the se re a so ns fo r a g re e ingto r e de e m g ame sta mps , n on e wa s illegal . The most the g overnme nt was a ble to show was that one defe ndant was told the g ame wa s “fixed.” In view of the rec ord e vid e nc e that Mc Do na ld’ s it se lf c ou ld b e vie we d a s h avin g“ fi xed ” the g ame – b y de lib e ra te ly e xclu din gCana da

fr om r e c e ivi ngany

high- va lue wi nn ingg ame pie c e s – we c ann ot h old

that it established beyond a re asonable doubt that defe ndants had a rec kless disreg ard f

or the truth. There was no proof

whatsoeve r that any

defe ndant re cklessly

disreg arde d the truth about the unlawful a c tiv ity un de rl yingthe c ri min a l c on sp ir a c y c ha rg e d – the e mbe zzle me nt o f t

he g ame sta mps . 38 not find th e defe ndants g uiltyof violating the rules of McD onald’s gam es, and that tr an sf er of agam e stam

p f ro m anothe r pe rs on w as not

pr oof of f ra ud, the de fe ndants w er e co nvi ct ed
. I t a ppe ar s th at

the j ur y c onvi ct ed

the se de fe ndants of vio la tin g th e ru le s of

Mc D ona ld’ s gam es . I n th e utt er abse nc e of

any pr oof , plu s 24 the gov er nm en t’ s avow ed

c onc es sio n th at

the se de fe ndants did

not k nowthat the gam e stam

ps had been em

bezzled or stolen (or even “ unlawfully acquired”), there is n o othe r explana tio n f

or the j ur y ’ s ve rd ic t. T hus, w e do n ot b el ie ve that the co u rt ’s l as tm i n u t e a t t emp t s t o cu re th e p ro b l ems i n h er en ti n th e g o v ern m en t ’s39

the or y of the c as e (and t o sa lva ge som ethin g of the ti m e an d e ff

ort de vot ed

to the ca se ) ad equa te ly

pr ote ct ed

the de fe ndants f

ro m the pr ej udi ce that r es ult ed
. N ot o nly w er e de fe ndants c onvi ct ed of c onsp ir ac ie s no t c harg ed in the indictm ent, but the governm ent has conceded that there is no proof to su pport de fen da nt s’ m em

be rs hi p i n t he in di ct edco ns pi racy – Ja co bs on ’s con sp ira cy . T hus, the re is a co m

ple te f ai lur e of pr oof a s to the c harg ed

c onsp ir ac y . T he
m oti ons fo r j udgm en ts o f ac qui tta l sh oul d have be engr an te d. III . T his c as e inv olv ed

an un fo rt una te se ri es of

e ve nts , r es ult ing in co nvi ct ion s that c an not

be sus ta ine d. T he gov er nm en t di d no t pr ove that the de fe ndants co m m itt ed m ai l f ra ud. N or did the gov er

nm en t pr ove asin gle m ai l f ra ud co nspi ra cy , a s a lle ge d. B ec au se the c onvi ct ion s inthi s c as e w er e pr ed ic at ed upo n both of these trial e rrors, we m ust reverse. Ac cordingly , the denials of the m otion s for j udgm ent of acquittal are RE V E RS E D , the c onvi ct ion s are V A CA T E D , and the c as e is RE MA N D E D f or the e ntr y of j udgm en ts o f ac qui tta l f

or e ac h of the de fe ndants .