### FI LED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT N ovembe r 16 , 2 004 THO MAS K. KAH N CL ERK [PUBLISH]

IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ___ N o. 03- 1539 5

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D .C. Docket N o. 03-00037 -CR- 3-RV UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nti ff -Appe llant,

ve rs us BREND A J. W IL LI AMS , De fendant-Appellee.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court f or the N orthe rnD istri ct

of F lor ida

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (N ove m be r 16, 200 4) Be fo re E D MO N D SO N , Ch ie f Judg e, F A Y , Ci rc uit Jud ge , a nd C O RR IG A

N *, District Judge. FA Y, Circuit Judge:

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ * Honora ble Timothy

J . Corrig an, United States District Judge f or the Middle District of F lorida, sitti ng by desig nation.Count Eleven of the Indictment char g es bank f raud or , in the alternative, aiding and 1 abetting bank fr aud. The jury verdic t makes no distinction in finding the De fenda nt “Guilty ” of Count Eleven. 2 A j ur y re tur ne d a ve rd ic t of gui lty

a ga ins t the D ef

en da nt, Br en daJ. W ill ia m s,
on o ne c ount

of ba nk f raud or a idi ng and a

be tti ng b an k f

ra ud. T he G ove rn m en t 1

m aintains that th e D efendant m ade fa lse re p re s en t ations to bank officials in an at te m pt t o ha ve the m

e xte nd c re dit

to he r daught er . Ci tin g in suf fi ci en cy of the evidence, the tr ial j udge gr an t ed t h e Defendant’ s m otion for j udgm ent of acquittal pur suan tt o R

u l e 2 9 o f t h e F e d e r a l R

u l e s o f C r i m i n a l P r o c e du r e . T h e G o v ernm en t now app eals the district court’ s judgm ent. T he Governm ent contends that the district
co urt im pr ope rl y vie w ed the ev ide nc e in the lig ht m ost favor ab le to th e Def en da nt
an d in co rr ec tly

c redite d th ose portio ns o f he r te sti m ony tha t c onf

lic te d w iththe Governm ent’ s evidence. Afte r careful consideration, w e hold that th e district court
erre d i n e nt eri ng th e jud gm en t o f acq ui tt al an d re ve rs e an d re m an d. Back ground The D ef en da nt w as c ha rg ed , in Co unt E le ve n of

a n e le ve n c ount

ind ic tm en t,
w ithba nk f

ra ud i n vi ola tio n of

18 U
. S. C. § 1344( 2) , or ai din g and abe tti ng b an k f ra ud in v iol at ion of

18 U
. S. C. § 2. T he D ef en da nt’ s da

ught er , T am

m y W ill ia m s N ee ly (“ N ee ly ”) , the pr im ar

y de fe nda nt na m ed in t

he I ndi ct m en t, ple d gu ilty to fo ur of the eleven cou nts charged agains t her, includi ng Count Eleven. The De fendant, c hargedAs e xpla ine d b e low , w he re a jur y re tur ns a ve rd ic t of

g uil ty and the dis tr ic t c ourt

se ts 2 aside that ve rdict by

enter ing a

judgme nt of ac quittal based on the insuffic iency of the e vidence , the dec ision of the district court is entitled to no defe renc e. United States v. Gr eer , 850 F.2d 14 47 , 1 45 0 ( 11 th C ir . 1 98 8) . T he re fo re , th e fa c ts s e t f or th h e re in a

re pr e se nte d in

a lig ht m os t favor able to the Gove rnment, re g ardle ss of whethe r the e vidence is direct or c ircumstantial. United States v. Bur

ns, 597 F.2d 939, 941 (5th Cir. 1979). 3 w ithonl y one co unt , pr oc ee de d to tr ia l. C ount E le ve n c ha rg ed

tha t the D ef

en da nt know ing ly

a nd w ill fu lly

e xe cu te d “ a sc he m e an d a rt if ic e to o bta in m oni es , fu nds an d credits owned by

and under the cus t o d y a nd control o f the Monsanto Em ploy ees Cr ed it U nio n ( “ ME CU ”) , af ed er al ly ins ur ed f inanc ia l i ns ti tu tio n, by

m eans o f
m at er ia lly fa lse an d fr au dul en t pre te nse s, re pr es en ta tio ns and pr om ise s. ” A t the c los e of the Governm ent’ s case, the De fendant m oved for a j udgm ent of acqu ittal, w hich the tr ia l j udge de nie d. T he D ef en da nt the n te sti fi ed

a nd r en ew ed

he r m otion for j udgm en t of

a cquit ta l. R es er

vin g r uli ng o n th e m oti on, the tr ia l j udge a ll owe d th e
ca se to go to the j ur

y , an d the j ur

y re tur ne d ave rd ic t of

gui lty
. A ft er

the ve rd ic t and pr ior to the sc he dul ed se nte nc ing he ar ing , the dis tr ic t c ourt i ssu ed it s or de r gr an tin g th e jud gm en t o f acq ui tt al , cit in g i ns uf fic ie nt ev id en ce t o ju st ify a con vi ct io n. Fact s 2 T he D ef en da nt an d he r husb an d, Jim m y W ill ia m s, he ld a

j oin t savin gs a cc ount at ME CU. T heir daughte r, Ne ely , had a savings as w ell as an outstandi ng loan
ac co unt a t M E CU
. A cc or din g to W en da D ow nin g (“ D ow nin g” ), a supe rv iso r at the Mi lto n B ranc h of

ME CU , in May 2002 , N ee ly r eque ste d ale tte r se tti ng o ut the sta tusTh e re we re , in fa c t, t wo ba se ba lls in N e e ly ’s po sse ssi on : a 19 62 Wor ld S e ri e s b a se ba ll 3 signe d by the New York Ya nkees a nd a 1972 World Series base ball signe d by the Detr oit Tige rs. Nee ly valued the 1962 ba seball at $6 million and the 1972 baseba ll at $2 mill ion. Thoug h not materia l to our analy sis, there is some inconsistency throug hout the rec ord evide nce due to the alternating r efe renc es to one ba seball ver sus two baseba lls. Other than what can be inferr ed by the re fer ence s to $8 mil lion, it i s unclea r whe ther Ne ely

was purpor

ting to have sold only

one or 4 of her loan. Dow ning provided Neely with the l et t er , which stated that she had
re ce ive d a$5, 000 loan in Sep te m be r 1999 and tha t Ji m

m y W ill ia m s pa id d ow n th e loan to $2, 016. 38. O n Se pte m

be r 11, 2002 , D ow nin g re ce ive d a te le phon e ca ll fro m Chr is Rutledge ( “ Rutledge”), the CE O of MEC U, who asked her about a letter that re ferr ed to “ D r. T am

m y W ill ia m s N ee ly. ” T he le tte r sta te d th at N ee ly he ld a six -m onth
ce rt if ic at e of de posi t ( “ CD ”) und er

the D ef en da nt’ s ac co unt num

be r va lue d ine xc es s of $6. 7 m ill ion , de spi te the fa ct tha t the D ef en da nt’ s CD w as onl y w orth $2, 050. T he letter w as on MECU letterhead, contained D owning’s signatu re, and wa s dated May 21, 2002 , the da te D ow nin g ha d pr ovi de d N ee ly w iththe le tte r re ga rd ing the sta tus of he r $5 ,00 0 l oa n. Do wni ng de ni edwrit in g s uc h a let te r. Appare ntly , N eely

had several outstandin g short term loans at First N ational Bank o f Cr es tvi ew , tot al ing $13 8, 000. T he loans w er e ove rd ue , an d in or de r to s how First National that she had m oney at MECU, Ne ely altered Downing’ s earlier letter and presented it to First National. Ne ely explained to First National that the m oney had com e fr om

the sale o f a signed W orld Series baseball that had belong ed to her 3bo th b a se ba lls
. 5

gr an df at he r. Fir st Nati on al th en co nt act edRu tl ed ge at M ECU to ve rif y th e le tt er. The day after Dow ning learned of the altered letter, the De fendant called her to i nqui re about

am one y w ir e tha t sh e ex pe ct ed

to tr an sf er in to he r ac co unt
. T he De fen d an t t o l d Dow ning that she was e xpecting $ 8 m illion from the sale of an
an tique in ei ght

day s. T he D ef

en da nt al so soug ht to: (1 ) ad d he r daught er , N ee ly , to he r ac co unt ; ( 2) r em ove he r husb an d f ro m the a cc ount

be ca use he w oul d sp en d th e
m on ey sh e was ex pe ct in g; an d (3 ) m ak e Neel y th e b en efi ci ary on he r CD. T he D ef en da nt vis ite d M E CUthe f oll ow ing da y , S ep te m

be r 13, 200 2, a nd,
ac co rd ing to te sti m ony , appe ar ed ne rv ous an d e xc ite d. T he D ef en da nt e xpl ai ne d to Dow ning that the antique w as a baseball that had been in her fam ily for som e tim e,
an d th at ape rs on w ho “ ha d m or e m one y than br ai ns, ” w as pur ch as ing the ba ll. T he De fendant also told Dow ning that she and Nee ly intended to invest the m oney in real
es ta te ve nt ur es . O n S ep te m

be r 17, 200 2, the D ef

en da nt and her hu sb an d a dde d N ee ly a s a be ne fi ci ar

y to the ir sa ving s ac co unt , a nd o n O ct obe r 15, 200 2, the D ef en da nt and N ee ly a tte m pte d to ope n a jo int ch ec kin g acc ount at the Mi lto n Br an ch ME CU , but
w er e re fu se d. L at er

tha t sam e da y , the D ef en da nt and h er

hus ba nd o pe ne d a ch ec kin g a cc ount

a t M E CU ’ s m ai n br an ch in Pe nsa co law ithN ee ly a nd J ai m e N el son6

(their other daughter) as benef iciaries. T he De fendant never inform ed any one at MEC U’ s m ain branch that she had not been perm itted to open an account earlier that da y . T he D ef

en da nt w as pr ovi de d wi th sta rt er ch ec ks for the a cc ount
. T he D ef

en da nt kne wtha t a cc ount

be ne fi ci ar ie s a t M E CUw er e not pe rm itt ed

to w ri te c he ck s onthe
ac co unt
. N ee ly the n w en t t o Fir st N at ion al on O ct obe r 16, 200 2, a nd w ro te a$6 m ill ion ch ec k f ro m the D ef en da nt’ s M E CUstart er

c he ck s to ope n am one y

m ar ke t a cc ount
. N ee ly dir ec te d $5

. 67 m ill ionof the $6 m il lion in to the m one y m ar ke t and the
re m ai nde r int o th e ch ec kin g a cc ount she he ld w iththe D ef

en da nt
. O n O ct obe r 17, 2002 , F irst Na tional received a t el ep h o n e call f rom an FBI agent advisin g that Ne el y’ s $ 6 m illion check w as no goo d. When noti fied by First N ational that there
we re insufficient funds to clear the c heck, N eely and the De fendant stated that they would go to MEC U to fix the problem . They subsequ ently

inform ed First N ational tha t the sit

ua tio n ha d be enr es olv ed a t M E CU– tha t th ey

w er e sim

ply a w ai tin g a
m one y w ir e int o th e ac co unt
. N ee ly a nd the D ef

en da nt the n r eque ste d am ee tin g w ith Ru tle dge , the CE O of ME CU , r e g a r d i n g t h e i r a c c o u n t
. S o , o n O c t o b e r 1 8 , 2 0 0 2 , a m e e t i n g w as he ld betwee n Rutledge, N eely , the De fendant, and Special Agent Steve Harker of the FBI. The m eeting was taped by the FBI , and du ring the m eeting, A gent Har ker posed as7

anout sid e au dit or

f or the ba nk. T he tr an sc ri pt o f the m ee tin g sh ow ed tha t, a t the out se t of

the m eet ing , the D ef en da nt a ske d w he the r the $8 m ill ionw ir e ha d a rr ive d. S he the n to ld R utl ed ge a nd A ge nt H ar

ke r tha t the ba se ba ll “ w as som ethin g that w e’ ve be en ke ep ing as a he ir loo m fo r al o n g t i m e , a n di t ’ s n o tg o n n ad o u s a n y g o o da f t e r w e ’ r e d e a d
. ” ( O c t o b e r

1 8, 2002 Tr anscript, Gov’ t Exh. 10B at 5 ). The D efendant explained that she int ended t o t r a n s f e r s o me o f t h e e x p e c t e dw i r e t o F i r s t N a t i o n a l , b u t t h a t s h e w o u l dl e a v e s o me
o f t h e mon ey i n h erac co u n twi t h ME CU . Th e D ef en d an tal s o re q u es t ed a c as h i er ’s ch ec k to ta ke to Fi rs t N at ion al , a nd w he n it ap pe ar ed tha t no pr ogr es s w as be ing m ad e at the m ee tin g, the D ef

en da nt and N ee ly

e xpr es se d th at

the y w oul d m ak es e ff

orts t o
re tr ie ve a ddi tio nal in fo rm at ionabout the w ir e tr an sf

er , i. e. , bil l of

sa le , na m e of at tor ne y ha ndl ing the tr an sa ct ion
. A t the c onc lus ionof

the G ove rn m en t’ s c as e, th e De fe nda nt m ove d f or j udgm en t of

a cquit ta l, a rg uin g th at

she did not ha ve a ny c ri m ina l i nte nt b ec au se she believed her daught er when she told her that she had sold the baseballs. T he district
co u rt , h o we v er , d en i ed t h e mot i o n , f i n d i n g a q u es t i o n o f f

ac tas t o t h e D ef

en d an t ’s frau du le nt in te nt
. The basis of the De fendant’ s defense was t hat she wa s, in fact, a victim of her daught er’ s fraud and lies. Significant to this Court’ s analy sis, the D efendant electe d8

to t ak e the stand i n he r ow n de fe nse . T he D ef en da nt t es tif

ie d th at she be lie ve d N ee ly
w he n she told he r how m

uc h the ba se ba lls w er e w orth, an d vari ous oth er de ce pti ons, inc lud ing tha t N ee ly

ha d c an ce r, w as am ed ic al doc tor , a nd h ad earn ed a Ph
. D
. T he D ef en da nt c ont en de d th at

the a cc ount

she opened at MEC U ’ s m ai n br an ch in Pe nsa co laha d no thi ng t o do w ith he r at te m pt to ope n a j oin t ac co unt

w ithN ee ly , a nd that after the Def

endant’ s m eeting with Rutledge, the De fendant called First N ational at the direction of Ne ely to advise that the fund s would be available soon. In additio n, the D efendant adm itted that she knew Ne ely had taken som e of the starter checks from

the new a ccoun t b u t t h at she wa s unaware of the am ount of the check
un ti l ju st pri orto he r m eet in g wi th Ru tl ed ge . T he D ef en da nt a lso a dm itt ed

tha t sh e lie d to ba nk o ff

ic ia ls a bout the ow ne rs hip of the ba se ba lls , a nd tha t she kne w tha t the y be lon ge d to N ee ly ’ s hu sband. S he a lso sta te d th at sh e ha d done r es earc h vi a the I nte rn et to de te rm ine the y ear of

the ba lls ba se d onthei r sig na tur es , but f ai le d to que sti on h er

daught er ’ s va lua tio n of the ba se ba ll s at $8 m il li on . A ft er the de fe nse res te d, the D ef en dant r en ew ed

he r m oti on f

or j udgm en t of
ac qui tta l. T he dis tr ic t c ourt r es pond ed : I beli ev e w ha t M s. W ill ia m s te sti fi ed to fr om the stand. N ow , it ’ s no t what I believed, but what the j ury believes in this cas e, so I thinkthat c o n t r o l s . Th e r e i s c e rt a i n l y e v i d e n c e t h a tt h e ju ry c o u l df i n de i t h e r wa y.9

Bu t I w ill ke ep it

und er a dvi se m en t, a nd l et

the j ur y r es olv e the que sti on of what they

believe and what they

don’t believe. (G ov’t E xhib it 10B at 114). T herefor e, as p erm itted by Feder al Rule of Cr im inal Pr oc e du r e 2 9 ( b ) , t h e c o u rtd e f e rr e dr u l i n g o n t h e m o t i o n , r e s e rv i n g i t s d e ci sio n pe ndi ng r et

ur n of the j ur y ’ s se nte nc e. T he j ur

y the n re tur

ne d a gui lty

ve rd ic t, but

the
co urt w ith he ld a dj udi ca tio n of gui lt unt il se nte nc ing
. J u s tb ef o re s en t en ci n g , t h e c o u rt i s s u ed i t s o rd erg ra n t i n g t h e D ef en d an t ’s
m oti on f or j udgm en t of

a cquit ta l, f

ind ing ins uf

fi cient e vid en ce to supp ort a
co nvi ct ionof

ba nk f ra ud. I n th e co urt’ s opinion, the G ove rn m en t’ s pr oof did not
es ta bli sh the D ef

en da nt’ s gu ilt

be y ond a re as ona

ble doub t. T he G ove rn m en t a ppe al s thi s j udgm en t. D isc us sio n Where a j ury returns a ver dict of guilt y and the district court sets aside that verdict by entering a j udgm ent of acquittal based on the insufficiency of the evidence, the decision of the district c ourt “ is e ntitled to no deference .” U nited States v. G reer , 850 F. 2d 1 447, 145 0 ( 11 Ci r. 198 8) (c iti ng U nit ed St at es v. H ay es In t’ l Co rp . , 786 th F. 2d 14 99, 1500 (11 Cir. 1986 )). Therefore , w e m ust decide “ whether the evidence, th

ex am ine d in a lig ht m ost favor ab le to the G ove rn m en t, w as suf fi ci en t t o su

ppor t the j ur y ’ s c onc lus iontha t the de fen da nt w as gui lty be y ond a re as ona

ble doubt. ” I d.10

(c iti ng U nit ed St at es v. V ar kony i, 611 F. 2d 84, 85- 86 ( 5 Ci r. 198 0) ). A ll cr ed ibi lity th ch oic es m

ust be m ad e in s uppo rt

of the j ur y ’ s ve rd ic t. I d. ( ci tin g U nited St at es v. G ia nni , 678 F. 2d 956, 958- 59 (11 Ci r. 1982 ); U nit ed St at es v. Bu rn s, 597 F
. 2d 9 39, th 94 1 (5 Cir . 19 79 )).

th A j ury is free to choose am ong re asonable constructio ns of the evidence. U nit ed S ta te s v. V er a, 701 F
. 2d 1 349, 135 7 (1 1 Ci r. 198 3)
. T hus, “ [i ] t i s no t th

ne ce ssary tha t the ev ide nc e exc lud e eve ry r ea sona ble hy pothe sis of

inn oc en ce or

be
w hol ly inc onsi ste nt w ithe ve ry

c onc lus ion ex ce pt tha t of gui lt, pr ovi de d ar ea sona

ble tri er o f fact co ul d fin d t ha t t he ev id en ce es ta bl is he s g ui lt be y on d a reas on ab le do ub t.” Uni te d S ta te s v . You ng , 90 6 F .2d 61 5, 6 18 (11 Cir . 19 90 ). th O n a ppe al , the G ove rn m en t arg ue s th at the dis tr ic t c ourt e rr ed

in gr an tin g a post-verdict m otion for j udgm ent of acquittal, contending th at it im properly viewed the e vid en ce in the li ght

m ost f av or ab le to the D ef

en da nt and i nc or

re ct ly c re dit ed the portion s of her testim ony

that conflicted with the G overnm ent’ s evidence. W e agre e. Pursuant to Federal R

ule of Crim inal Procedure 29, a district court m ay set aside a guilty

verdict and enter j udgm ent of acquittal if there is ins ufficient evidence to sust a i n t h e v e r d i c t
. I n o r d e r t o c o n v i c tad e f

e n d a n to f b a n kf r au dp u r s u a n tt o 18 U
. S. C. § 13 44( 2) , the G ove rn m en t m ust pr ove be y ond a re as ona ble doub t, tha t: (1 )
a sc he m e ex ist ed

to obt ai n m one y , f

unds , or c re dit in the c ust ody

of af ed er al lyWhil e the Gove rnment must show intent, it need not show Def endant’ s knowledg e of the 4 particula r mea ns the principals e mploy ed to ca rry out the criminal ac tivity . I d. 11 ins ur ed fi na nc ia l inst itu tio n; (2) the de fe nda nt par tic ipa te d in the sc he m e by m eans of f al se pr et en se s, r ep re se nta tio ns, or pr om ise s, w hic h w er e m at er ia l; an d ( 3) the defendant acted knowingly
. United States v. De nnis, 237 F.3d 129 5, 13 03 (11 Cir. th 2001 ). L ike w ise , to be co nvi ct ed of ai din g and abe tti ng ban k fr au d, the G ove rn m en t
m ust dem onstrate that the Def endant had the sam e w illfulness and unlawful intent as the a ct ua l pe rp etra tor s of

the f ra ud, tha t i s, she a ct ed

w iththe int en t t o de fr au d. United States v. Per ez, 922 F.2d 782, 785 (11 Cir. 1991 ). th 4 A lth oughthe dis tr ic t c ourt be lie ve d th e D ef endant’ s te sti m ony

a nd d id n ot believe that she ever re qu es t ed any action from

the ME CU until the alleged wir e tr an sf er a rr i v e d , t h e c o u rt w a s r e q u i r e d t o r e s o l v e a n y c o n f l i c t s i n t h e e v i d e n ce in favor of the G ove rn m en t and a cc ep t a ll re as ona ble inf er en ce s tha t te nd to s uppo rt the Governm ent’ s case. See United State s v. W ard, 197 F. 3d 1076 , 107 9 (11 Cir. 1999 ). th T his te st a

ppl ie s r eg ar dle ss o f w he the r the e vid en ce is dir ec t or c ir cu m stanti al
. Uni te d S ta te s v . Mack o, F.2 d 1 52 6, 1 5 2 8 (1 1 Cir . 19 93 ); B ur ns , 59 7 F .2d at 9 41
. th W e fi nd tha t the re w as suf fi ci en t evi de nc e to sat isf

y the fi rs t tw o e le m en ts o f 18 U
. S. C. § 13 44 –

tha t a sc he m e ex ist ed

to obt ai n m one y , f

unds , or c re dit in the custodyof a f

ederally insured financial instit ution and that the De fendant participated12

in the schem e by m eans of false pre tenses, re presentations, or prom ises, w hich wer e
m at er ia l. T he e vid en ce sho w ed tha t the D ef

en da nt w as sa vvy

e noug h to use the In te rn et to re se ar ch the ba se ba lls
. T he j ur y co uld ha ve re as ona

bly co nc lud ed

tha t the D ef en da nt r es earc he d th e 1962 Y an ke es ba se ba ll te am to ve ri fy the te am

r ost er a nd the sig na tur es tha t w oul d a ppe ar on suc h a ba se ba ll in or de r to m ak e the sto ry about the b a l l ’ s v a l u e m o r e c o n v i n c i n g . A l s o , t h e e v i d e n c e s h o w e dt h a tt h e D e fe nda nt
co nti nue d to a sse rt

the im pe ndi ng arr iva l of

the w ir e tr an sf

er de spi te the fa ct tha t the alleged sale of the baseballs s till had not occurred a m onth after telling Downing that she expected an $8 m illion transfer in e ight day s. In additio n, the D efendant adm itted that she lied for Ne ely regarding the ownership of t he baseballs, despite the fac t that she knew they

belonged to her daug hter’ s estranged husb and. Moreover, the taped
m ee tin g w ith Ru tl ed ge a nd A ge nt H ar ke r re ve al ed

the D ef en da nt r eque sti ng a

$6
m ill ionc as hie r’ s ch ec k. T he j ur y c oul d ha ve r ea sona

bly inf er re d th at the D ef en da nt
re que ste d that MECU provi de he r w iththe c as hie r’ s c he ck a t tha t t im e, be fo re the wi re t ra n s fe r ar ri v ed t o M EC U. Su ch an i n fe re n ce i s fu rt h ers up p o rt ed b y Ru t l ed g e’s te sti m ony tha t he a ct

ua lly be lie ve d th at the D ef

en da nt w an te d ME CU to issu e the $6
m i l l i o n c a s h i e r ’ s c h e c k a t t h a t t ap e d m e e t i n g . T h e e v i d e n c e s h o w e d t ha t t he Defen da nt was wi ll in g to li e rep eat ed ly for h er d au gh te r’s be ne fit as we ll as h er o wn ga in ( e. g. , m isr ep re se nta ti on s to bank o ff ic ia ls r eg ar din g th e tr

ue ow ne rs hip of

theThe district cour t relied on Willi ams v. United States, 458 U.S. 279 (1982) f or the 5 proposition that merely

writing or depositing a bad c heck, or even taking pa

rt in a che ck kiting s ch em e d o es n o tam o u n tt o b an k fr au d
. Al t h o u ghwe h av e c o n cl u d edt h at m er el y p as s i n g a fra udulent chec k cannot c onstitut e bank f raud, this Court has spec ifically found that making additional false r epre sentations in order to c onvince a fede rally -insured ba

nk to ext end cr edit can violate 18 U.S.C. § 1344. United States v. Swearing en, 858 F .2d 1555, 1557 (11th Cir. 1988). Al so , it is n ot n e c e ssa

ry fo r t he Go ve rnme nt t o d e mon str a te that th e De fe nd ant p e rs on a lly be ne fi tte d f

ro m th e art if

ic e in o rd e r f

or a c on vic tio n to be su sta ine d. Un ite d St a te s v . Wil liams, 728 F.2d 1402 ( 11th Cir. 1984). 13 al le ge d $ 8 m il li on ba se ba ll s)
. The district court w as troubled bythe absence of “ som e m aterial
m isr ep re se nta tio n bythe de fe ndan t to at te m

pt to obta in m one y or

c re dit in a ddi tio n to the depos it of bad checks.” (Court’ s Or der, Docket E n t ry 5 3 at 5 -6 ). T he court found th at the D efendant’ s m isrepresentations “ we re, at b e st , o nl y t ang entially

relate d to the $6 m ill ionc he ck
. ” I d. a t 6. W ithr eg ar d to the D ef en da nt’ s in te nt t o de fr au d, 5 the di s t r i c t c o u rt f

o u n d n o e v i d e n c e s h o w i n g t h e D e f e n d a n t ’ s k n o w l e d g e o f

the $6
m ill io n c h e c k u n t i l j u s t p r i o r t o t h e t ap e d m e e t i n g . T h e p r o b l e m w i t h suc h a

“ fi ndi ng” is tha t the dis tr ic t c ourt ba se d it upo n th e te st im on y

of the D ef en da nt, overlook ing conf

l icting evid ence prese nted by the Governm ent. T he j ury wa s free to dis be lie ve the te sti m ony of the D ef en da nt i n f

av or of the te sti m ony

pr es en te d by the G ove rn m en t. The evidence wa s certainly sufficient to prove that the Defe ndant kn ew that there w as no sale of the bas eb al ls, that there wa s no wire tr ansfer, and that she was14

aiding and abetting her daught er’ s bank fraud. T his Court has pr ev iousl y held that ci rc um stanti al ev ide nc e m ay pr ove know le dge an d inte nt. Se e gen er al ly Ma ck o, 994 F.2 d a t 1 53 3. Su ch is th e cas e h ere. Ina ddi tio n to the af

or em en tio ne d ev ide nc e of gui lt, the D ef en da nt e le ct ed

to ta ke the stand and t o te sti fy in he r ow n de fe nse . “ D ef en da nts in cr im ina l tr ia ls are not obl ige d to te sti fy
. And a de fen da nt w ho c hoos es to pr es en t a de fe nse r

uns a subs ta nti al r isk of bol ste ri ng the G ove rn m en t’ s ca se . ” U nit ed St at es v. Be nne tt, 848 F. 2d 1 134, 113 9 ( 11 Ci r. 1988 ). “ Mos t i m porta nt, asta te m en t by

ade fe nda nt, if th d i s b el i ev ed b y t h e ju ry, m ay b e c o n s i d er ed as s ub s t an t i v e ev i d en ce o f t h e d ef en d an t ’s guilt .” U nited States v. Brown, 53 F. 3d 312, 314 (11 Cir. 1995 ). “ By ‘ subs tantive’ th

w e m ean e vid en ce a dduc ed f or the pur pose of pr ovi ng a fa ct in iss ue as oppo se d to
ev ide nc e giv enf

or the pur pose of dis cr ed iti ng a

w itn es s ( i.e., s ho wing tha t he is unworthy of belief) , or of corroborating his testim ony .” Id. This Circ uit has said th at

“ when a def

endant choos es to testify , he runs the risk tha t i f d i s believed the jury
m ight con clude the oppo site of his testim ony is true.” Id. (citations om itted). T he D ef en da nt t es tif

ie d un de r oa th tha t she ha d no ind ep en de nt k now le dge of the va lue of the ba se ba lls , of the w ir e tr an sf er , or of the $6 m ill ion ch ec k – th at she
re lie d on w ha t she tol d by he r daught er . S he a lso te sti fi ed tha t sh e w as not

tr y ing to get the bank to issue a $6 m illion cashier’ s check, and essentially extend credit to her15

and her daughter, bef

ore the arrival of a wire transfer. How ever, the j ury , hearing her
w or ds and see ing he r de m eanor , w as en tit le d to dis be lie ve the D ef en da nt’ s te sti m ony
an d, i n fa ct , to be li ev e th e o pp os it e o f wha t s he sai d. Se e Bro wn, 5 3 F .3d at 3 14
. Where som e corroborative evidence o f gu ilt exists for th e char ged offense (a s is tru e in this c as e) a nd the de fe ndan t ta ke s the stand i n he r ow n de fe nse , the D ef en da nt’ s te sti m ony , de ny ing gui lt, m ay es ta bli sh, by its el f, el em en ts of the of fe nse . I d. a t 31 5. “ T his r ule appl ie s w ithspe ci al f or ce w here th e ele m en ts t o be pr ove d f or ac onvi ct ioninc lud e hig hl y su bje ct ive e le m en ts: f or e xa m ple , the de fen da nt ’s in te nt or k no wled ge .” Id
. Co n s eq u en t l y, we f

i n d t h at t h er e was s u ff

i ci en t ev i d en ce t o s up p o rt t h e ju ry’s gui lty ve rd ic t on ba nk fraud. T hus, w e re ve rs e an d r em an d f or the dis tr ic t c ourt t o
re ins ta te the j ur

y ’ s ve rd ic t and s en te nc e the D ef en da nt, Br en daJ. W ill ia m s,
acco rd in gl y . REVERSED AND REMANDED.16

CO RR IG A

N , D istri ct

Jud ge , c onc ur

ri ng: I concur in the Court’ s hold ing th at, givin g the gov ernm ent’ s evidence every be ne fi t of the doubt, the re w as suf

fi ci en t evi de nc e to suppo rt the j ur y ’ s ver dic t. I a lso ag re e th at th e j ur

y w as f re e to d isb el ie ve the de fe nda nt’ s de nia l of c ri m ina l i nte nt. Se e U ni te d S ta te s v. Br ow n, 53 F
. 3d 3 12 ( 11th C ir
. 199 5)
. H ow ev er , I r eg ar d th e Court’ s discuss ion of B rown concer ning the use of the defendant’ s denial of guilt as subs ta nti ve e vid en ce of

gui lt as dic ta an d p ot en ti al ly pro bl em at ic
. In United State s v. McCarric k, 29 4 F. 3d 1286 (11th Cir. 2002 ), decided seven y ears a ft er

Br ow n, the Co urt, in hol din g th at the re w as ins uf

fic ient ev ide nc e to supp o rt the j ury ’ s verdict notwithstand ing th at the defendant testified and denied g u i l t , e x p l ai n ed : “ Ou r c as es s i n ce B ro wn h av e r ei t er at ed t h e g o v er n m en t ’s fundam ental oblig ation to establish it s case-in-c hief.” See id. at 1293 (citing United States v. Rudisill , 187 F. 3d 12 60, 1268 (11t h Cir. 1999 ); United States v. Mar tinez, 83 F
. 3d 3 71, 374 ( 11th C ir
. 199 6) ; Un ite d Sta te s v. Me j ia , 82 F
. 3d 1 032, 103 8 ( 11th Ci r. 19 96 )). In m y view, it rem ains unclear in the Ele venth Ci r c uit when negative inferences from a defe ndant’s denial o f g u i l t can be used by an appellate court to rem edy an otherwise def

icient governm ent case. Both Brow n and McCar rick indicate that such
ne ga tiv e infe re nc es c anbe co m e posi tiv e ev ide nc e of gui lt, but onl y w he re the re is17

“ som e co rr obor at ive e vid en ce of guilt .” How m

uc h c or ro bor at ive e vid en ce is necessary , short of evidence e stablish ing gu ilt bey ond a reasonable doub t? Ne ither Br ow n no r Mc Carr ic k a nsw er tha t ques ti on . O the r co urts h av e re co gni ze d th is problem and have held that an appellate court m ay not af firm “ on the sup posit ion th at the de fe nda nt’ s de m eanor f ill ed the ga p inthe gov er

nm en t’ s pr oof

” le st a ppe lla te reviewconcerning the sufficiency of the evidence becom e m eaningless in cases
w he re the de fe nda nt te sti fi es an d deni es gui lt. Se e U nit ed St at es v. Z ei gle r, 994 F. 2d 845, 845-46 (D .C. Cir. 1993 ); see a lso, United State s v. Sliker, 751 F.2d 477 (2d Cir. 1984 ); but se e United States v. Za firo, 945 F. 2d 88 1, 888 (7th Cir. 1991)(holding that a defe ndant’s denial of guilt can b ec o m e ev idence of guilt to add to the other
ev ide nc e). McC arri ck , wit h i ts em ph as is on th e g ov ern m en t’s fu nd am enta l ob lig at ion to p ro ve it s c as e, se em s to a cc or d m or e w iththi s vi ew . Howev er, be ca use it is
unne ce ssary

to the r es ult

in thi s c as e to f

ac e thi s qu es tio n, I w oul d no t do so.