## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 08

- 4131 U NI T ED S TATE SOF A MERI CA, P la intif f-A pp ellee, v . M ICK EY L. D OO LEY, D e f e ndan t

-Appe l l ant
.
A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the S outhernDi stricto f Illino is. No . 3:08- cr-30010- GPM- PMF-1

— G . Patri ckMu rp hy, Ju dge

. A RG UE D M AY 27, 2009

— D ECI DE D A UGUS T 20, 2009

Befo re C UDAH Y, R IPPLE a nd W OO D , C ircu it Judges . R IPPLE, Ci r c u i tJu dge . M i ckeyL. Dool ey w as convi cted in the U nited States D istri ct C ou rt forthe Sou th ern Dist ri ct o fI l l i noi s o n char ges a ris ing o ut o fthefts fro m th e ev i den ce l o ck ero fthe mu nicip alpo l i ce de par tment w here he was e m plo yed. The di str i ct c ou rtse ntenced hi m to 12 0 m onths’ i m pri sonm ent, f ollow ed bythr ee ye ar s o f su p er vis ed rel e a s e . M r. D oo ley filed th is t im ely appeal chal l engi ng bo th hi s co nvi cti on a n d hi s s entence
. Fo r th e re as on s d isc u ss ed in t h is op in ion, w e a ffirm h is2 N o. 08

- 4131

c o n v i c t i o n i n p a r ta n d re ve r s e i ti n p a r t
. B e c a u s e we ar e re ver si ng hi s convi cti on on one count, w e also m ust vacat e hi s sen tence and re m and his cas e t o the di str i ct cour t forr ese ntenci ng.

I

B AC KGR OUND M r. Dool ey w as a p ol i ce o ffi cerem plo yed bythe A l ton ( I l l i n o i s ) P o l i c e D e p a r t me n t( “ AP D ” )
. Dur i n gth e t i me p er iod rele va n t t o th is c as e, M r. D oo ley w as th e e vidence custo dian f orthe A PD ; in this capaci ty, he was re sponsibl e forco l l ecting and pro cess i ng ev i dence at th e scen es of m aj or cri m es com m itted w ithin th e A PD ’s j ur i sdi ct i o n. H e was al so i n cha r g e o fre ce i ving, mai nt ainin g a n d p re se rv in g t h e e vid en c e t h a t w a s s to re d in the APD ’ s e vi dence vaul t. The A PD ’ s e vi dence vaul t was subj ec t to str i ct s ecuri ty m ea su r es . Onl y fi ve mem be r s of th e APD, i nc l udi ng M r. D oo ley , h ad ac c es s ca rd s allow in g en tr y to th e ve st ib u le a re a o u ts id e t h e e vid en c e v au lt. E n tr y t o t h e va u lt i tse l fr eq u ire d a speci alse cure key ; o nl y tw o copi es of th atk eye xi ste d. One was a ss i g ne d t o M r . Do o l ey ; the seco nd was sto re d i n a s ecure ar ea i n the ad m i ni str ati on w in g of t h e A P D . T h e c as h loc ke r in sid e t h e v au lt r e qu i r e d a no the r k e y f o r acc ess ; o nly t wo c o pi e s e xi s t e d. One w as ass i gn ed to M r. Dool ey and the o therwas sto re d i n the secur ed adm i ni str ati on wing. I n J une 2006 , the Ol i n Com m unity Cre ditU ni on in A l ton w as rob b ed (th e “ O C U rob b er y” ). In O c to b er 20 06 , aN o. 08

- 4131 3 l o ca lb r an cho fthe US B an k w as r o bb ed ( th e “US Ba nk ro b b er y” ). Th e A P D inv es tig at ed th e ro b b er ies ; i t u ltim at ely was abl e to r ec o ve r $ 4, 11 5 i n pr o ce eds fr o m the J une robber y a nd $ 20, 029 fro m the Octoberr obbe ry . M r. D ooley p articipate d in both invest igations an d p e rsonal l y deposi ted the m oneyi nto the APD evi dence va u lt. O n F rid ay , A p ril 6 , 2 00 7, FB I Sp ec ial A ge n t M ela n ie J i m i nez co ntacte d M r. Dool ey’ s s up er vi sorto r equest that evi dence from the OC U r obbe rybe turned o verto the F BI f oruse i n th e federa lpro secuti on in that case . That sa m e day, M r. Dool ey’ s s up er vi sorsen t h i m an e m ai lto i nfo rm hi m that the FBI wished to r etr i eve that evi dence the f ol l owing w eek

. On S und ay, A pr il 8

— o ne of M r. Do oley’s d ays off

— survei l l ance c am er as re cor ded M r . Do o l eyi ns i de th e ev i dence vaul t r emov i ngthe box co ntai ni ng ev i dence fro m the OC U r obbe ry . On the fol l o wi ngM o nda y, Apri l9 , S pec i alAge nt Jim in ez ca lled M r. D oo ley to arr an ge to p ick u p th e e vide nc e . Mr
. Do o l e y t o l d J i mi ne z tha th e wo ul d p r o v i de a co ntai ner i n w hi ch to carry the e vi dence. H e a l so as k ed he r t o de l aythe e vi den ce picku p unt i lthe f ol l owing day. J i m i nez a gr eed. W hen J i m i nez a rr i ved the ne xt da y, M r . Do o l e y g a v e he r a n i nv e nt o r y l i s t t o c h ec k offw h ile h e h a n d l ed th e e vid en c e p ac ka ge s. W h ile Ji m inez w as looki ng at th e li st, th e su rveil la n c e c am era capture d M r. D oo ley pla ci ng o ne o fthe packag es und er anothe r; as a re sul t, J i m i n ez neverexam i ned the co ntents o fthe c onc ea l ed pac k ag e. M r . Do o l eythe n c ar r i ed th e evid en ce ou t to J im inez’s car. Ji m inez took th e evide nc e d irect ly to the FB I ’s secu re evi dence r oo m , wh er e i t r em ain ed unti lFr i day, A pri l13 ,4 N o. 08

- 4131 2007
. On that day, the FBI discov er ed that m osto f the m on ey re cove re d fr om the OC U r obbe rywas m i ssing and that the or i gi nalse al s o n the evi dence enve

l opes had been co m prom i sed. J i m in ez noti fi ed herdi re ct supervi sor an d the A PD
. In re sponse, A PD Pol i ce Chi ef Ch ri s S ull i van o rder ed an i nventory o fthe A PD ev i dence vaul t. He a l so o r der ed APD per so nne lno t to e nt erthe va ul t unt i la fte r the i nv en to r ywas c o m pl ete d o n the f ollo w i ng M onday. Despi te Ch i efS ull i van’ s o rderto st ay out, M r. Dool ey w as re cor ded ente ring the v au lt o n both Sa turday and Sund ay. On Sunday, t h e cam er as also record ed him acces sing th e A PD ’s cash l ocker. The A PD co nd ucted an a ud i t o fthe evi dence v au l t o n M o nd a y, Apr i l1 6 , 2 0 0 7
. As a r e s ul t, the APD di s c o ver ed th at bags cont aining evid en ce from the U S Ba n k robbery ha d b ee n t amper ed wi th a nd tha t $1 8, 60 8 was mis sing fro m the evi dence i n th at case . Invest i gat or s l ate r discove re d that a n evi den c e b ag conta i ni ng $9 , 460 had been cut o pen, r e- sea l ed, and i ni ti al ed by M r. Dool ey. H an d w riting ana lysi s con fi rm ed th a t the i nitials w ere w ri tte n by M r. Dool ey. The A PD then ter m i nated i ts i nter nalinv es ti gat i on an d tur ne d the matt ero ve r t o the I l l i no i s S ta te Po l ice a nd th e F BI
. Inv es ti g at o r s p er f o r m ed a ful la udi t o fthe A PD ’ s ca sh l ock erand dis cove re d that a to tal of$3 8, 749. 58 w as m iss in g. S om e o fthe m i ssing cur re ncy had be en re p lac ed w ith p oo r-q u alit y c ou n te rfe it b ills. T h e in ve st iga t i o n a lso rev ea led th at M r. D oo ley h ad rem ov ed ev iden ce , i nc l udi ngc as h, a co m put er an d m ar ij ua na , fr o m the scene ofa death i nvest i gat i on. H e h ad not boo ked that evi dence ordocum ented i ts exi ste nce in any w ay.N o. 08

- 4131 5 A fte r d isc ov er in g t h e c ou n te rfe it c u rre n c y in th e e vidence vaul t, the i nvest i gat or s a ske d M r. Dool ey i fthey c ou ld se ar c h an y c om p u te rs h e o w n ed . M r. D oo ley to ld th e i nv es ti g at o r s th athe o wned two c o m p uter s, a nd he s i g ne d a f o r m t i t l ed “ CONS ENT TO S EARC H BY OW N ER, ” w hi chr epr es en te d tha t he ha d o wner sh i p a nd author i ty ove r both com puters. Invest i gat or s di sco ver ed th at th e s er ial n u m b er of on e o f th e c om p u te rs , an A p p le Ma c i n t o s h l a p t o p , ma t c h e d th e s e r i a l n u mb e r o f a c o mpu terthathad bee n tak en fro m the hom e o fLee F i el ding, one ofthe perpetr ato rs o fthe U S Bank robber y. T h e in ve st iga to r s t h en int er vie w ed M r. D oo ley ag ain and aske d him i fhe ha d sto l en t he l aptop. M r. Dool ey i ni ti al l y de ni ed ha vingsto l eni t; he i ns i st ed th athe ha d b o ug htthe l apt o p fr o m the Appl e S to r e atthe Ga l l e r i a ma l li n S t
. L o ui s, M i ss o u r i, f o r $ 2 , 0 0 0 i n c a s h

. He cl ai m ed that he had a re cei pt at hom e that would pro ve hi s o w n er shi p. A fterabo ut thi rty m i nutes o fquesti oni ng, h ow eve r, M r. Dool ey changed hi s s tory a nd adm i tte d that he had st ol en the l aptop. A fo re nsi c exam i nati on re veal ed that he had ente re d ow ners hi p i nfo rm ati on o n th e l apt o p a s i fi t wer e hi s o wn an d ha d us ed th e com pu terf orper sonal purposes . The exam i ners al so di sc o ve r ed th atM r . Do o l eyha d us ed th e l apt o p t o c o ndu ct a Goog l e sea rch on the phrase “fi nanci alr uin. ” R. 125 at 959. Fu rt h er inv es tig at ion rev ea led t h at M r. D oo ley w as in ser i ous fi nanci altr oubl e. H e o w ed ten s o ftho usands of dol l ar s in back taxes ; h e w as the s ubj ect ofse ver alI RS t ax l e v i e s a nd a wa g e g a r ni s hme nt
. Th e i nv e s t i g a t o r s a l so6 N o. 08

- 4131

un cove red m assive gam bli ng losses: In 2006 , M r. Do oley’s ta k e - h o me p a y t o t a l e d $ 3 5 , 9 5 5 , b u t h i s l o s s e s a t th e A l ton Bel l e Casino t ota l ed $48 , 424. 95. Invest i gat or s a l so disc ove re d that M r. Dool ey did not file a 2006 federa lta x r e t u r n u n t i lO c t o b e r 3 1 , 2 0 0 7, wel la ft e r h e b e c a me aw are tha t he w as u nd er i nv estigation by th e I R S. On M ay 22, 20 08, the Govern m ent b ro ught an ei ghtcount ind i ctm ent a gainst M r. Dool ey in t h e U ni ted S tat es Di st r i ctCo ur t f o r the S o uthe r n Di st r i ctofI l l i no i s. The cri m es al l ege d w er e: ( 1) two co unts o fm aking a f al se state m en t, 18 U
. S. C
. § 1001(a)(2 ); (2) one cou nt of w ire fr au d, 1 8 U. S
. C. § § 13 43 , 1 34 6; ( 3) o ne co unt o fa tt empti ng to concea le vid en c e, 18 U
. S. C. § 1 512( c) ( 1) ; ( 4) two co unts o fdi sposa lo fmo ne y s t o l e n fr o m a b a nk, 1 8 U. S
. C. § 2113 ( c) ; ( 5) one count of m i sappli cati on of pr oper ty und erthe contr olo fa l oca lgo vern m en t, 18 U
. S. C. § 6 66; a nd ( 6 ) o ne c o un to ff a i l ur e t o f i l e a ta x r e t urn, 2 6 U. S
. C. § 7 203. M r. Dool ey fi l ed a m oti on t o d ism i ss the ind i ctmen t, wh i c h the di s t r i c tc o ur tde ni e d. A ftera tw o- w eektr i al, a j ury convi cted M r. Dool ey on al lco unts. The di str i ct courtim posed an above

- gui del i nes sente nce o f12 0 m onths i n pri son. M r. D oo l ey then fi l ed th i s appeal, i n w hi ch he chal l enges the i nd i ctm ent, h is convi cti on a nd hi s s entence
.
II DI S C US S I ON M r . Doo l ey r ai se s fi ve po i nt s o fe r r o r . He c ha l l en g es the suffi ci ency ofthe evi dence a t tri al, the suffi ci ency ofN o. 08

- 4131 7

Thi s l at t eras s er t i on i s no ts uppor t ed by the r ec or d. The 1 portion ofthe tr ial tr ansc ri pt to which M r. Doo le y ci tes does nots ubs t ant i at e hi s as s er t i on thatthe c our t for ced hi m t o t ake less tim e tha n h e ne ed ed to p u t o n h i s d efense. A cco rd ing to the t ra ns c ri pt, the cour tsi m pl y as ke d M r. Dool ey ’ s c ouns elho w m u c h ti m e h e w o u l d n e e d to p r e se n th i s c a se . M r . D o o l e y ’s c ouns elrep lied , “I woul d s ay the be t t erpar tofthe day, your H onor, ” to w h ic h the court r es pon ded , “V ery w el l. ” R.126 at 1401. M r. D o o le y d o es not c lai m thathe ever asked f or m ore ti m e. Furtherm ore, he has m ade no atte m pt to e xplai n w hat add it ional evidence he w ould hav e pres ente d ifhe had m ore ti m e t o pu t on hi s defe nse. the i nd i c t men t, the di s t r i c tc o ur t ’ s d e c i s i o n t o e xc l ud e cer tain ev id en ce a t t ri al, the dist ri ct c ourt ’ s r efusalto gi ve a r equest ed j ury i nstr ucti on a nd the re aso nabl eness ofhi s s entence
. W e s hal laddres s e ach o fhi s a rgum ents i n tur n.

A . Suff i ci ency o ft he Evi den ce M r . Do o l eys ubmits t ha t th e ev i den ce pr es en te d b y the G overn m en t o n e ac h o fthe e i g htc o unt s was i ns uffi ci en t to pe r m i t an y r at i o na lt r i ero ff ac t to c o nc l ude tha t he wa s g ui l t y b e y o nd a r e a s o nab l e do ub t
. He a l s o c o nt e nd s th atthe di st r i ct cou rt“ r us he d” hi s defen se b y r equi r i ng h im to co u n te r tw o w ee ks ofg o v e rn m en t e vid en c e in onl y o ne day. A pp el l ant’ s Br. 18
. 1 “A chal l enge to the s uffi ci ency ofthe evi dence i s a d iffi cu lt tas k f or a defen d an t. W e sha llreverse only if, aft er vie w in g a ll of th e e vi d e n c e i n a ligh t m os t fa vo ra b le8 N o. 08

- 4131 to the gov er nm ent, and dr aw i ng al l re aso nabl e infe re nces ther e fr o m, . . . a r a t i o na l t r i e r o f f a c t c o ul d no thave f o un d the e s s e nt i a le l e men t s ofthe c r i me, b e y o nd a re aso nabl e doubt .” U nited Sta tes v . Hearn , 53 4 F
. 3d 706, 71 4 ( 7th Ci r . 20 08 ) ( al te r at i o n i n o r i g i na l ) ( ci tation and qu otation m arks om itted ). M r. Dool ey poi nts to s eve ra lpi eces o fev i dence that co ul d ha ve pr o vi ded a ba si s f o r r ea so nabl e do ubtif th e j ur y ha d de ci d ed to c r edi t th em. F o r s ev eno fthe e i g ht co unt s, ho wev er, h e fai l s to i den ti fy a ny e l emento fa ny o f the c r i mes f o r whi c h the Go v e r nme nt f ai l ed to prese nt ev i dence s u ffi ci ent t o supp or t the j ury’ s v er dict

. R ath e r , h e sim p ly takes i ssu e w ith th e w eight th e j ury chose t o assi gn to the Gover nm ent’ s e vi dence. Thi s i s no t an ad eq u at e b as is on w h i c h t o c h alle n ge a c on vic tio n . See U ni t e d S t at e s v. Rol l i ns , 544 F. 3d 820, 835 ( 7th C ir. 20 08) ( “I t i s up to the j ur y t o wei g h the e vi den ce a nd de te r m i ne the c re dibi l i ty ofthe w i tness es; we do not seco nd

- guess th e j ury’s ass essm en t of th e evide nc e.”)
. O n on e of th e eight cou nt s, how ever, M r. Do o ley’s chal l enge h as m er i t. Count 3 ofthe i nd i ctm ent a l l ege s that M r. Dool ey com m i tte d w i re fra ud i n v iola ti on o f18 U .S.C . §§ 1 3 4 3 a n d 13 46 . Th e w ire frau d st at u te m ak es it a cr i m e t o “tr ansm i t[] or c ause[ ] to be tr ansm i tte d by m ea ns of w ire .
. . i n int er st at e o r f o r ei g n c o m m er ce , a ny w riting s, s ign s, signals, p ictures or sou nd s for th e pu rp os e o f ex ec u tin g [a frau d u len t] s c h em e o r ar tific e.” 18 U
. S. C. § 1 343. Count 3 ofthe i nd i ctm ent a l l ege s that M r. Dool ey engag ed in a “schem e t o defr aud the Ci ty o fAl to n P o l i ce De par tmenta nd the c i ti ze ns o fthe S o uth-N o. 08

- 4131 9

er n Dis tr i ct o fI l linoi s o ut o fthe ri ght t o honestse rv i ces of th e e vi dence offi cero fthe A l ton Pol i ce Depar tm ent t o pr es er ve the int eg r i tyo fe vi den ce b eings to r ed i n c o nne ct i o n wi thc r i m i na li nv es ti gati o ns a nd pr o se cutions.” R.25 at 2. Th e ind ictm en t all eges th at M r. Dool ey’ s s chem e v i ol ate d t h e w i re fra ud st atute by ca u s ing an e-m ailto be sent from M r. Do oley’s su p ervis or , D av i d H a y es , to M r. D oo ley on A p ril 6, 20 07 . In that e- m ai l, H aye s di re cted M r. Dool ey “to ga ther evi dence being hel d i n the [ A PD ] ev i dence vaul t t o r etur n t o the [ F BI ] f o r a fede r alb an kr o bb ery pr o se cuti on. ” Id. at3- 4. The i nd i ctm ent furthera l l ege s that M r. Dool ey’ s “ concea l m ent o fhi s m i sappropri ati on o f ev id en c e w as inc id en t a l t o a n es se n tia l p ar t o f h is s c he me t o co nti nue h i s e mpl o y men ta nd fur the r mi s a ppropri ate ev i dence, ” a nd a dd s that M r. Dool ey “knew that the F

. B.I
. w oul d be s eek i ng the r etur n ofthe evi dence i n the or dinar y c ours e o fbusi ness and ther efore that th e us e o ft el eph o ne s o r e m ai lt r an smi ss i o ns woul d o cc ur i n the ord in ary co urse o fbusi ness. ” Id. at4. The Gover nm ent’ s theor y i s that the e- m ai lput M r. Dool ey on noti ce that the FBIwould be com i ng to t ake poss ess i on of th e e vid en c e fro m t h e O C U rob b er y a n d th at th is i nfo rm ati on hel ped him co ncealthe f act t h at he had sto l en m osto fthe m oneyfro m thatr obbe ry . W e h av e h eld th at, un d er ce rt ai n circ u m st an c es , a com m unica ti on i s m ade “f orthe p u rp ose o fexec uti ng” a fr au d whenthe c o m m uni ca ti o n f ac i l i ta te s co nc ea l m en t of a n o n go in g fra u d u len t s c h em e. See, e. g., U nited Sta tes v. Turn er, 5 51 F
. 3d 65 7, 668 (7th Ci r . 2 00 8) ( “Use o fthe ma i l s t o l u l lv i c t i ms i n t o a f a l s e s e n s e o fse cur i ty, we10 N o. 08

- 4131

The fe dera l m a il fraud statute, 18 U.S
. C. § 1341, i s w orded 2 al m os ti dent i c al l y t o the wir e f ra u d sta t ut e and i s par tofthe same c ha pt e r of the Un i t e d S t a t e s Co de

. W e ha ve he ld that “[c]ases con stru ing the m ail-frau d statu te are equ ally appli c abl e t o c as es i nvol vi ng vi ol at i ons ofthe wir e- f ra ud st atute
. ” Uni t e d S t a t e s v. Tur n er, 55 1 F .3d 657 , 66 6 n .4 ( 7th C ir . 20 0 8 ) (cit a tio n o m itt ed ). h av e h eld , viola te s t h e m a i l f ra u d st at u te , eve n if it oc curs afterthe m oneyhas been fra ud ule ntl y obt a i ne d. ” ( qu o ti ng U nite d State s v. B rocksm ith , 99 1 F
. 2d

2 1363 , 13 67- 68 ( 7th Ci r. 19 93) ) )
. W e nee d not consi der w h et h er th e e vid en c e s u p p or ts a c on c ea lm en t t h eo ry in th i s ca se , h ow ev er, b ec au se i t i s cl ea r tha t th e Gov ernm en t fai led to p rov e a not he r requ irem en t of th e w ire fra ud st atute : thatthe defe nd ant “ tr ansm i t[ ted] o r cause[ d] t o be t ra nsm i tte d” a wir e co m m unica ti on. 18 U
. S. C. § 1 343. The Gover nm ent b ase d the wir e fra ud char ge on a n em ai lm ess age se nt byH aye s t o M r. Dooley on A pri l6, 2007
. In that m ess age , H aye s inform ed M r. Dool ey that FBI S peci alA gent J i m i nez would be co m in g t o col l ect th e ev i den ce fr o m the OCU r o bb ery. The Go ve r nm en t subm i ts that, al though M r. Dool ey did notse nd that m essa g e hi m se l f, he ne ve r th el es s “c au se d” i t to b e se nt bec au se he “acte d w ith k n o w le d g e tha t the use of a w ire was re aso nabl y for ese eabl e. ” Ap pel l ee’ s Br. 33 ( ci ti ng U nite d State s v. R atli ff -W hite, 4 93 F. 3d 812, 81 8 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 7) )
. To s uppo r t th i s th eo r y, the Go ve r nm en t r el i es o n the S upr eme Co ur t’ s decisi o n in Pere i r a v. U nited Sta tes , 3 47U. S
. 1 ( 19 54 )
. I n P ereira , th e C ou rth eldN o. 08

- 4131 11 th at“ [ w]h er e o ne do es a n actwi thkno wl edg e th atthe use o fthe m ai l s wil lf ol l ow in the o rdi narycourse o f bus i ne ss , o r wher e su chus e ca n r ea so nabl y b e f o r es ee n, ev en th ou gh n otac tu ally int en d ed , he ‘ca u se s’ t h e m ails t o b e u s e d. ” Id. at8- 9. The Governm ent s ubm i ts that, be ca us e M r . Do o l eyc o ul d f o r es ee tha t H ay es woul d s en d hi m ane - mai ldi r e c t i ngh i m t o g e tthe e v i de nc e r e a dy f or p i c k up , h e the r e f o r e “ c a us e d” the Apr i l6 e - mai lto be s ent. The Gover nm ent’ s p os ition i s ba sed o n a m i sr eadi ng o f P ereira a nd a n un te nabl e r ea di ngo fthe wi r e fr au d st at u te
. Pere i r a s a y s th a tth e d e fe n d a n t“ c a u s e d ” a c o mm uni ca ti o n whe n he a ct ed wi ththe kno wl edg e ( o r r ea so nab l e f o r e s i g h t ) th a ts u c h a c o mmun i c a t i o n wo u l d “ f o l l o w” fr o m hi s a c t i o n. T he Go v e r nme nts e e ms t o t a k e the vi ew th at by “fo llow ,” th e C ou rtsim p ly m ea n t “ oc c u r aft er .” A lth ou gh th is is o n e m e a n i n g of t h e w or d “fo llow ,” it pla i nly ca nnot be the one the Cour t intended, f orsuch a n i n t e r pr e t a t i o n w o u l d r e a d th e w o r d “ c a u s e s ” c o mpl et ely o uto fthe s tatute. Ra th er, i t i s cl ea r tha t th e Court m eant that the c om m u n i cati on m ust o ccur not onl y a fter the defe nd ant’ s act, but as a res ult of th ata ct
. The sta tute re qu ire s a ca us al c o nne ct i o n b etwee n the de fen dant’s acti ons and the co m m unica ti on, notsi m plya tem pora lo ne. Thi s r ea di ngi s bo r ne o utb y the f ac ts i n Pere i r a i tse l f. I n tha tca s e , the de fe nd a nt s h a d c o ns pi r e d t o de fr a ud a w i dow byf al sel y r epres enti ng t h at o ne o fthem was a su c c es sfu l oil sp ec u lat or . Th e s c h em e w a s s u c c es sfu l, a n d i tr e s u l t e d i n th e ma i l i n go fa $ 3 5 , 0 0 0 c h e c kfr o m a12 N o. 08

- 4131

Se ver al of our re c en tc as es i l l us t ra t e thi s poi nt
. I n U n i te d S tat es 3 v. A dcoc k, 5 3 4 F. 3 d 6 3 5 ( 7 th Ci r . 2 0 0 8 ) , the de fe nd a nta c q ui r e d a gov ernm ent paintin g c ontractby conceali ng his financi al int eres t i n the contrac tor. This res ulte d in int ers tat e wire t ra ns fer s of funds fro m the Uni t ed S t at es Tr ea s ur y t o the ban k acco u nt o f the op era tor of the facility b eing p ain ted ; the f acility oper a t orthe n us e d tho s e fun ds t o pa y the c on t r a c t or . Th e wi re t ran sfer s no ton l y wer e f or es ee abl e t o the defen dant, but the y a l s o woul d notha ve oc c ur re d i n the abs en c e of the defen d an t’ s m isrep resen tatio ns. I n U n i te d S tat es v. Tu rner, 55 1 F
. 3d 6 57( 7th Cir

. 20 08 ) , the defen dants uper vi s ed j ani t or s who wer e em pl oye d by the Sta te of Illinois. Th e d efend an t help ed the jan i t o r s fa lsify their tim e c a rd s to collec t w ag es f or tim e the y d id no t actu ally work. As a re s ul t, the i nt er s t at e wir e t ra ns fers of th ei r pay- (co n tin u ed ...) bank i n Texas to a bank in C al i f or ni a. T hi s m ai l i ng, wh i ch o c c u r r e d a s a d i r e c t r e s u l t o f th e d e fe n d a n t ’ s s c h e me an d woul d no t ha ve o cc ur r ed in its ab se nc e, was the basi s forthe defe nd ants’ m ai lfrau d co nvi cti on, wh i ch the Su p re m e Cour t a ffi rm ed. The m ai l i ng di d not sim p ly occ ur a

fterth e d efe n d an ts ’ frau d u len t a c tio n s; it o c c ur r e d beca use of

th em . S e e i d. a t 8 ( “To co nsti tute a vi ol ati on o fthes e pr ovi si ons, it i s no t nec ess ar y t o show th atpet i ti o ne r s ac tu al l y mai l ed o r t r an spo r te d a ny th i ng them sel ves; i t i s s uffi ci ent i fthey ca used i tt o b e do ne .” (em p ha sis add ed ))
. Cases i n thi s ci rcui t a nd o ther s co nfi rm the re quir em ent that the defendant’s act i ons and the co m m unica

ti on a t i ssue m ust be causa l l y c onnecte d. In each of 3N o. 08

- 4131 13

(
. . . c on t i nu e d) 3 c h e c k s w e r e fo r a n i n fl a t e d a m o u n t
. I f n o t fo r th e d e fe n d a n t ’s m iscon d u ct, no w i r e t r an sfers i n th ose a m ou nts ev er w ou ld ha ve o c c ur r e d. I n U n ited S tates v . R atlif fe-Wh ite, 493 F. 3d 812 ( 7th Cir

. 20 0 7 ), th e d e f e n da n t w a s c o n v i c t e d o fw i r e fr a u d b a s e d o n a c o mm uni c at i on s en tfro m the Uni t ed Sta tes Depar t m en tofthe Treasury i n M aryland to the Fed eral R es erve Bank i n D all as; that c om m uni c at i on i ns t ru c t ed thatp aym en tbe m ade t o the defen dan t’ s f raud ulent bu si n es s. Id

. at 815- 16. This court he ld that the defe nd ant c aused a w ir e t ransm iss ion i n furtheranc e ofh e r s c he m e be c a us e s he k ne w tha tpa ymen t s wou l d b e el ec tro ni c al l y t ra ns m i t t ed t o h erac c ountan d the re f or e “s he cl ea rl y fo re sa w th a t he r fr a u d

. . . w o ul d re s ul ti n w ire tran sm issi ons. ” Id . at81 9 (em p h a sis ad d ed ). L an g u ag e in ca ses fro m oth er circu its a l so reflects the ne cessit y o f a c a u sa l co n n ec tio n . S ee, e.g ., Uni t e d S t a t e s v. Ede l mann , 458 F .3d 791 , 8 1 2 (8th C ir. 20 06 ) (“T he statu te p ro v id es tha t a d efend an t m u st ‘ cau se’ the u se of m ails, b u t a d efend a n t w ill be d eem ed to have ‘ cause d’ the use ofm ail s . . . i fthe use w as the r e a s on a bl y f or e s e e a bl e r e s u lt of his actio ns.” (em p ha sis a d d ed ) (cit a tio n an d qu o ta tio n m a rk s o m itt e d ) ); U n i te d S tat es v. Bruckman , 87 4 F .2d 57 , 6 0 ( 1 st C ir. 19 89 ) (hold ing tha t a d e fe n d a n ts a t i s fi e s th e c a u s a t i o n r e q u i r e me n tb y “ d o i n g s o me act f ro m w hi ch it i s reaso na b ly fore seeab le tha t the m ails w ill be us ed” ) ( em phas i s a d ded) ( c i t at i on and quot at i on m ar ks o m itt ed )). these cas es, the m ai l i ng o r w ire tr ansm i ssi on o n w hi ch the c onvi c ti on was bas ed ei therwould not have oc c u rre d , or w ou ld h av e o c c u r r e d in a su b st an tia lly di ffe r e ntf o r m, i n the ab s e nc e ofthe de fe nd a nt ’ s fr a ud

ule nt co nd uct.14 N o. 08

- 4131 T h at ca u sa l co n n ec tio n is ab se n t in th is c as e. E ve n if M r. Dool ey never had c om m i tte d a ny theft, the FB I still w oul d have a ske d to ta ke p os ses si on o fthe OC U m oney i n o r dert o us e i t i n the fede r alpr o secuti o n fo r tha t ba nk ro b b er y, an d H ay es w ou ld h av e s en t M r. D oo ley ex ac tly the s am e e - m ai lm ess age aski ng hi m to pre pare that evi dence f orthe FBI
. M r. D oo ley’ s co nd uct had no effect on e i therthe exi ste nce o fthatwir e t ra ns m iss i on o r i ts co nt e nt
. He di d no t “ c a us e ” i t t o b e s e nt i n a nyse nse o f th e w or d

. C o m pa re U ni t e d S t at e s v. Kwiat, 817 F. 2d 440, 44 3- 44 ( 7th Cir
. 1987 ) ( re ver si ng a m ai l fra ud co nvi cti on wh e r e “ h o n e s ts e r v i c e s w o u l d h a v e p r o d u c e d th e s a me so rtof m ailin gs ” a s th e o n es th e d efe n d an ts m ad e), w ith Uni t e d S t at e s v . M i t c hell , 744 F. 2d 701, 70 4 ( 9th Ci r. 19 84) ( affi rm i ng a m ai lfra ud co nvi cti on w h ere the m ai l i ngs “w ou ld n ot hav e occu rred exc ep t as a step in th e sch em e”). Because he di d no t tr ansm i t orcause the tr ansm i ssi on o f any inter sta te w i re co m m unica ti on, M r. Dool ey i s no t gu il ty of w ire fraud

. H is co n v ic t ion on C ou nt 3 therefore m ust be r eve rs ed, and an o rdero facqui tta lm ust be enter ed on that c ount.

B . S uf f i c i e nc yo ft he I ndi c t me nt M r. D oo ley su b m its th at th e c as e a ga i n s t h im sh ou ld have been dism i sse d because the i nd i ctm ent was i nadequate under Rule 7( c) ( 1) o fthe Feder alRule s o fCri m in al Pro cedure. Rule 7( c) ( 1) pro vi des that“[ t] he i nd i ctm ent o r i nfo rm ati on m ust be a pla i n, co nci se, and defi ni te wri tt ens ta te m en t o fthe e ss en ti alf ac ts cons ti tu tingthe o ffen se c ha r g ed

. . . . ” M r . Do o l eyc o nt en ds th atno ne o ftheN o. 08

- 4131 15 counts i n the i nd i ctm en t w ere “ suffi c[ i ] ent e nough to pr o vi de an y f ac tu alpa r ti cul ar s to ful l y, di r ectly a nd w i thout any a m bi gui ty i nf[ or ] m [ hi m ] o fwh at he m ust be pr epare d to m eet
. ” Ap pel l ant’ s Br. 12
. A n i nd i ctm ent i s s uffi ci ent i fi t m eet s three r equire

m ents: “F i rs t, i t m ust s tat e e ach el em ent o fthe cri m es charg ed; se cond, i t m ust pro vi de th e d efendant w i th ade qua te no ti ce o fthe na tu r e o fthe c ha rges so tha t th e accused m ay p re pare a defense; and thi rd, i t m ust a l l ow th e d efend an t to rai se th e j ud gm en t as a bar to futu re pros ecuti ons f orthe sam e o ffense . ” U ni t e d St at e s v. Cas t al di, 54 7 F
. 3d 69 9, 7 03 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 8) ( ci ta ti o n o m i tt ed )
. To m ount a succe ssful chal l enge to th e suffi ci ency ofan i nd i ct m en t, a de fen dan t m us t sh o w tha t th e i ndi ct m en t f ai l ed to sati sfy o ne o r m or e o fthes e r equi re m ents. “M or eov er, the defe nd an t m ust dem onst ra te prej ud i ce fro m the al l ege d defi ci ency i n the i nd i ctm ent. ” Id

. M r. Dool ey appears to ar gue that the i nd i ctm ent f ai l ed to sat i sfy the se cond re quir em ent. W e ca nnot a gr ee. Con tr ar y t o M r . Do o l ey ’ s cl ai m s, ea chofthe co unt s i n the i nd i ctm ent c ontained suffi ci ent det ai lto put hi m o n noti ce about the nature ofthe Gover nm ent’ s a ccu sat i ons. The onl y c ount that e ven co m es cl ose to f al l i ng sho rto f thi s r equi re m ent i s Count 7, wh i ch st ates that M r. Dool ey “i ntenti onal l y m i sappli ed proper ty val ued a t $ 5000 o r m or e. ” R. 25 at 5. The descr i pti on a ccom p an ying that co untdo es no t pr o vi de spe ci fi c i nf orm ati o n abo utthe p r o p e r t y o r h o w i t w a s mi s a p p l i e d

. T h i s o mi s s i o n , h o weve r, does notr ender the ind i ctm ent insuffi ci ent. Ind i ctm ents ar e t o be re ad “pra cti cal l y a nd as a w hol e, r ather16 N o. 08

- 4131 than i n a ‘ hypert echni calm anner. ’ ” Cast al di, 54 7 F
. 3d at 703 ( quoti ng U ni t e d S t at e s v. Fa s s nac ht, 33 2 F
. 3d 440, 44 4- 45 ( 7th Ci r. 20 03) )
. W h en t h e indi ctm ent i s r ead as a w hol e, i t i s cl ea r tha t th e pr o per tyde sc ribed in Cou nt7i s th e cash and the lap top , th e m isap p li cation of w hich are described i n detai li n the previ ous c ounts. I n any eve nt, M r. Dool ey has no t a l l eg ed , m uch l ess pr o v e d, tha th e s uffe r e d a nyp r ej ud i c e fr o m t he a l l ege d i nfi rm i ti es i n the i nd i ctm ent. Ind eed, he ne ver as ked f or a bi l lo fpa r ti cul ar s. Nordo es he de ny tha t th e Gov ernm en t ha d a n “ o p en fi l e” po l i cy . I t i s cl ea r fr o m the r ec o r d tha t M r. D o o l eya nd hi s co uns elunde r st o o d the Gover nm ent’ s a l l ega tio n s and were abl e t o m ount a vig or ou s, alb eitu n su c c es sfu l, d efe n se attria l.

C. E x c l us i on o fE v i de nc e a bo utPo s s i bl e Pr e v i o us R obberi es Pri orto M r. Dool ey’ s a pp oi ntm ent a s the A PD ’ s e vi dence c u st odi an, the Dep ar tm ent m ove d fr om i ts ol d dep ar tme n tb u i l d i n gt o a n e wl y c o n s t r u c t e d b u i l d i ng

— th e sa m e b u ild in g t h at itoc c u p ies to d ay . Th e e vid en c e v au lt in the ol d bu il d ing lacked m an y of t h e secu rity an d surve i l l ance fea tu r es pr es en t i n the ne w bui l di ng . Af te r the m o ve , b utb efor e M r . Do o l eyb ec ame e vi den ce c us to di an, th e APD co nduc te d a n e vi den ce aud it to e ns ur e ana cc ura te acc ou n ting ofal lthe evi dence i n the new vaul t. T his au d it revea led th at som e item s li sted i n th e A PD ’s recor ds w er e no t physi cal l y pr ese nt i n the i nventory, w hi ch rai sed the possibi l i ty that they m i ght ha ve been sto l en fro m the ol d evi dence f aci l i ty.N o. 08

- 4131 17 A t t ri al, M r. Dool ey soughtto i ntro du ce e vi dence ab o utthe se mis si ng ite m s. The c o ur t ex cl ude d the ev i den ce f o r t wo re as o ns . F i r st, the c o ur t no te d tha t th e i nv en to r y do cumen ts wer e unda te d a nd un si g ne d, a nd ther ef or e lack ed properf oundati on. The co urt further co nc l ude d tha t, ev eni fa f o unda ti o n c o ul d b e l ai d, the “r ea lpr o bl em” was tha t th e e vide nc e was i r r el ev an t: The f act that thefts m i ght ha ve oc c u rre d at a di ffer ent, l ess secu re faci l i ty, ye ar s be f or e M r. Dool ey becam e e vi dence custo dian, had no b ear i ng o n the al l ega tio ns ag ai nst M r. Dool ey. R. 127 at 1494
. M r. Dool ey al so soughtto pre sent evi dence r el ate d to th e po ss ibl e th eft o fs o m e g uns tha t o nc e ha d b ee n in the vaul t but w ent m i ssing afterbeing m ove d t o anothe r, l ess se c u re p ar t o f t h e b u ild in g. T h e g u n s h ad be en p ro p er ly checke d out o f the e vi dence l ock erand sl ate d fo r destr ucti o n, b utno r ec o r d c o ul d b e f o und ind ic at i ngtha t th e d es tr u c tio n ac tu ally to ok p lac e. T h e c ou rtrejec te d th is evi dence, to o, bec ause i t concl ud ed that, ev en i fM r. Dool ey co ul d pr o ve tha t th efts o fe vi den ce fr o m o ut si de o fthe vaul t had o ccurr ed, such thefts w er e i rr el evantto wh ether som eone bes i des M r. Dool ey c ou ld have s tol en ev i dence fro m i nsi de the secur e v aul t. M r. Dool ey sub m its t hat the excl usi on o fthi s e vi dence w as erro n eou s. T he Go vern m en t argu es th at th e cou rt d id n ot err in ex clud ing the eviden ce, and that i f th ere wa s a n y e r r o r, i tw a s h a r ml e s s i n l i g h to fth e “ o v e r wh e l mi ng” e vi dence ofM r. Dool ey’ s guil t. A pp el l ee’ s Br. 31
. W e r ev i ew a di st r i ctcou rt’ s r el ev an ce de te r m i na ti o ns for ab u se ofd i s c r et ion
. U nite d State s v. G il l , 58 F. 3d 334,18 N o. 08

- 4131 337 (7th Cir. 1995). W e d o n ot beli eve th at th e cou rt ab us ed i ts di sc r et i o n in e xc l udi nge vi den ce abou t the al l ege d pri orthefts. M r. Dool ey’ s theor y o fdefense w as th at so m eo n e e lse h ad st ole n t h e c as h from th e e vidence vault . Gi ven the extr em e s ecuri ty m eas ures that w er e in p lace i n the evi dence vaul t, i t i s di ffi cul t t o see h o w th e p o s s ib i l i t y o fth e ft s a tso me u n d e t e r mi n e d t i me i n the past fro m o ther, l ess - secure faci l i ti es w oul d have an y b ea r i ngo n whe th erM r . Do o l ey ’ s ex pl an at i o n fo r the theft o fthe m oneywas possibl e. The di str i ct c ourtthe ref or e a cted reas onabl y in excl ud i ng the pro ffer ed evi dence as irre lev an t. Se e Fed. R. Ev i d. 4 01
. M o r eo ve r, a ny m i ni malr e l e v a nc e tha tthe e v i de nc e o fthe a l l e g e d the f ts m igh t h av e h ad w as likely ou tw eig h e d b y th e ris k t h at it w oul d w ast e t i m e a nd d ist ra c t the j ury fro m the centr al iss u es in t h e c as e. See Fe d

. R. Evi d. 403 ( “A l though r el eva nt, e vi den ce may be e xc lud ed i fi ts pr o ba ti ve v alue is s u b st an tia lly ou tw eig h ed b y th e d an ge r of u n fair prej ud i ce, co nfusi on o fthe i ssues, o r m i sl eadi ng the j ury, orbyco nsi derat i ons ofundu e del ay, waste o fti m e, or needl ess pre sentatio n ofcum ula ti ve evi dence. ”)
. Giv en these ci rcum sta nces, t h e d i str i ct c ourtdi d not abuse i ts disc re ti on in excl ud i ng m enti on o f the al l ege d pri orthefts.

D . Pr oposed J uryI nstructi on M r. Dool ey next chal l enges the dist ri ct cour t’ s re fusalto gi ve a pro posed ju ryi nstr ucti on with re spect to Count 2 ofthe i nd i ctm ent. Count 2 al l ege d t h at M r. Dool ey vi ol at ed 18 U. S
. C. § 1 00 1( a) ( 2) b ymakinga f al se s tatem ent to FBI ag ents i n an i nter vi ew o n M ay 1 8, 2007
. In thatN o. 08

- 4131 19 i nter vi ew , the FBI ag en ts a ske d M r. Dool ey i fhe ha d sto l en the A pp l e M aci ntos h l aptop. M r. Dool ey tol d them th at he had n o t st olen th e laptop bu t, rath er, had pu rch as ed i t fr o m the S t. Lo ui s Apple S to r e f o r $ 2, 00 0 ca sh

. A pp ro xi m ate l y 3 0 m i nutes l ate r, however, M r. Dool ey ch an g ed his sto r y a nd a dm i tt ed to ha vings to l enthe l a pt o p. At t r i al, M r . Do o l eyreque st ed th e f o l l o wi ngj ur y i nst r uct i o n: T h e d efe n d an t re c an ts h is fa lse d ec l a ra tio n w h en , in the sam e conti nuous inter vi ew , he a dm i ts to i nvest i gators tha t his e arli er de claration w as false. H ow ever, i n ord er forthe defe nd ant t o re cant hi s t est i m ony, he m ust ad m i t the f al si ti es: befor e the i nter vi ew has been su bsta nti al l y a ffecte d by the st ate m ent, o r bef or e i t has bec om e m ani festto the d efendant that the f al se decl arati on has bee n orwil lbe exposed to the invest i gat or s. R. 142. The di str i ct c ourtdecl i ned to gi ve th e r equeste d i nstr ucti on. The j ury f ound M r. Dool ey gui l ty on Count 2. H e s ubm i ts that i t wa s er ro r f orthe cour t t o decl i ne to g i ve the i ns truct i o n. A d e fen d an t is en titl ed to a theory-of- d efense j ury instru ction if: ( 1) the i nstr ucti on repre sents an accura te sta tem ent o f the l aw ; ( 2) the i nstr ucti on re fl ects a theo ry that is supp or ted bythe evid ence; ( 3) the i nstr ucti on r efl ec ts a the o r y whi chi s no t al r ea dy par t o fthe charge; a n d ( 4) the f ai l ure to i ncl ud e the i nstr ucti on w ou ld d en y t h e a p p ella n t a fair t ria l.20 N o. 08

- 4131 U ni t e d S t at e s v. Ebe rha rt, 467 F. 3d 659, 66 6 ( 7th Ci r. 20 06) ( quoti ng U nited Sta te s v . B uc hm eier, 25 5 F
. 3d 415, 42 6 ( 7th Cir
. 20 01) )
. M r. D oo l ey’ s pro posed i nstr ucti on f ai l s t o sat i sfy the fi rs t a nd se cond re quirem en ts. The pro posed in st ru c ti on was notan a ccurat e s tat em ent o fthe l aw in th i s ci r cui t. In U nited Sta tes v. B eav er, 515 F. 3d 730, 74 2 ( 7th Ci r . 20 08 ) , we ex pr es sly he l d th at “§ 10 01 co nt ai ns no re c an tat i on defense. ” M r. Dool ey’ s instr ucti on a l so w as unsup ported b y the ev i dence i n the case . The i nstr ucti on pr o po se d a r ec an ta ti o n de fen se whenthe de fen dan t r ec an ts “ be f o r e i t ha s be co m e m an i fes t to the de fen dan t that the f al se decl ar ati on has bee n orwil l b e ex p osed to th e in ve st iga to rs .” R .14 2. T h e u n d isp u te d e vid en c e inth is c as e, h o w e v er , est ab lish es th atM r. D oo ley rec an te d h is st at ementabo utthe l apt o p o nl y a fte r i nv es ti g at o r s co nfro nted hi m with a rec eip t pr oving tha t the l aptop had been purchas ed by the b ank r obbe r, Larry Fi el ding. Thu s, the f acts i n thi s ca se did notsupport the pr opose d i ns truct i o n. F o r the se r ea so ns , the di st r i ctc o ur t di d no t er r i n de cl i ni ngt o de l i ve r the pr o po se d i ns truct i o n.

E . S e nt e nc i ng Because we ar e r eve rs i ng M r. Dool ey’s c onvi cti on o n Count 3, w e m ust vacat e hi s sente nce and r em and the cas e for re se n te n c in g. Se eU ni t e d S t at e s v. Sh ah , 55 9 F
. 3d 643, 64 4 ( 7th Ci r . 2 009) ( “[ A]l th o ug h h e r ec ei ve d c o nc ur r en t sente nces . . . , [ the defendant ] is e n titl ed to a shotat p er su ad in g t h e jud ge to giv e h im a ligh te r se n te n c e in vi ew o fthe acqui tta lthat w e are d i re cti ng. ”)
. A ccor dingl y,N o. 08

- 4131 21

w e nee d not a dd re ss M r. D oo l ey’ s obj ecti on t o the r easonab l eness o fhi s o ri gi nalse ntence.
Conclusi on For the reas ons set forth above , w e a ffirm M r. Do oley’s c o nv i c t i o n o n a l lo fthe c o un t s i n the i nd i c t m en te xc e pt Cou nt3
. W e r ev er se hi s co nv i ct i o n o n Cou nt3 a nd r emand to the di str ict c ou rtwith instr ucti ons to enteran o rder of a c q u it t a l o n th at co u n t. M r. D oo ley ’s s en te n c e is vac ated and the ca se is r em an d ed to the d istri ct cou rt f orr ese ntenci ng. A FFI RMED i n P ART, R EVER S ED i n P ART,

V ACATED a nd R EMAND ED wi thI NS T RUCT I ONS

8- 20- 09