# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls

For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 4- 15 99

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e

v.

Bran dy Mari e Tho m as

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

__ __ __ __ __ __

App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t

fo r th e Eas te rn Dis tri ct of Ark an sa s - Li tt le Ro ck

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: Marc h 1 3, 2 01 5

Fil ed : J ul y

2, 2 01 5

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re MUR PHY an d S HEPHERD, Circ ui t J ud ge s, an d HARP OOL, Dis tri ct 1

Ju dg e.

__ __ __ __ __ __

SHEPHERD, Cir cu it Ju dg e.

Bran dy Thom as was c on vi ct ed , aft er a ju ry tri al , o f fo ur co un ts of wire frau d

ba se d o n a sch em e sh e pe rp et rat ed to de frau d m or tg ag e le nd ers by sub m it ti ng fal se

The Hon or ab le M. Dou gl as Harp oo l, Uni te d St at e s D i s t ric t Ju dg e fo r th e 1

W es te rn Dis tri ct of M is so ur i, s it ti ng by des ig na ti on

.in co m e in fo rm at io n on lo an ap pl ic at io ns

. The di st ric t co ur t se nt en ced Tho m as to 48 2

m on th s im

pr is on m en t fol lo wed by 18 m on th s su pe rv is ed rel eas e an d ord ered he r to

pa y res ti tu ti on

. Tho m as ap pe al s, arg ui ng th e di st ri c t c o u r t erre d in two of it s

ev id en ti ary ru li ng s, in th e in st ru ct io ns it ga ve to th e jury, in al lo win g th e go ve rn m en t

to co ns tru ct iv el y am en d th e in di ct m en t, an d in is su in g an All en ch arg e to th e jury 3

an d p ol li ng in di vi du al juro rs . W e aff irm.

I.

A gr an d jury in di ct ed Bran dy Tho m as on fo ur co un ts of wire frau d fo r

al le ge dl y en ga gi ng in a sc he m e to de frau d m or tg ag e le nd ers be twee n Ju ne 20 06 an d

D ecember 20 06

. The go ve rn m en t al le ge d th at Tho m as de frau de d le nd er s b y

su bm it ti ng fal se in co m e in fo rm at io n on lo an ap pl ic at io ns in rel at io n to th e pu rch as e

of th ree pr op ert ie s an d th e refi na nc in g of on e pr op ert y

, sp eci fic al ly al le gi ng Tho m as

ov ers ta te d he r in co m e, pr ov id ed fic ti ti ou s ren ta l ag reem en ts to su pp or t th e ov ers ta te d

in co m e am ou nt , and fai le d t o l is t a m or tg ag e d eb t o n l oa n d oc um en ts

.

II.

W e fir st co ns id er whe th er th e di st ric t co ur t erre d in th e in st ru ct io n it ga ve th e

jury reg ard in g th e “ in te nt to ha rm ” el em en t of wire frau d. Befo re su bm it ti ng th e cas e

to th e jury, th e di st ric t co ur t co ns id ered pr op os ed jury in st ru ct io ns fro m bo th Tho m as

an d th e go ve rn m e nt co nc ern in g th e “ in te nt to de frau d” el em en t of th e wire frau d

of fen se

. The di st ric t co ur t reject ed Tho m as ’s pr op os ed in st ru ct io n an d in st ead us ed

an in st ru ct io n th at cl os el y fo ll owe d th e Eig ht h Ci rcu it Mo de l Ju ry In st ru ct io n fo r m ai l

frau d. Tho m as as se rts th at th e di st ric t co ur t erre d in refu si ng to in st ru ct th e jury th at

The Hon or ab le D.P. Mar sh al l Jr

., Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e East ern 2

Dis tri ct of Ark an sa s.

All en v. Un it ed Sta te s, 1 64 U.S. 49 2 (1 89 6)

. 3

-2

-Tho m as m

us t ha ve co nt em

pl at ed

, at th e ve ry le as t, so m e act ua l ha rm to an ot he r in

or de r to co nv ic t her of wire fraud

. W e rev ie w a di st ric t cou rt’s jury in st ru ct io ns fo r

ab us e o f di sc ret io n. Bo es in g v . Spi es s, 5 40 F.3d 88 6, 8 90 (8t h C ir. 2 00 8)

.

Secu rin g a co nv ic ti on fo r wire frau d req ui re s th e go ve rn m en t to pr ov e th at :

(1 ) th e d efen da nt de vi se d o r joi ne d a sc he m e to de frau d, (2) th e de fen da nt in te nd ed

to de frau d, (3 ) it was reas on ab ly fo res eeab le th at in te rs ta te wire c om m un ic at io ns

wou ld be us ed

, an d (4 ) wire co m m un ic at io ns were, in fact

, us ed

. 18 U.S.C. § 13 43 ;

Uni te d S ta te s v . Jo hn so n, 45 0 F.3d 36 6, 37 4 (8t h Cir. 20 06 ). Reg ard in g t he “ in te nt

to de frau d” el em en t, “ th e [g ov ern m en t] is no t req ui red to sh ow act ua l lo ss or ha rm

t o t h e vi ct im s of th e frau d in or de r to pr ov e wire frau d []. Rat he r, th e go ve rn men t

m erel y ne ed s to sh ow th at th e accu se d in te nd ed to de frau d hi s vi ct im an d th at hi s or

he r co m m un ic at io ns w e r e r eas on ab ly cal cu la te d to de cei ve pe rs on s of or di na ry

pr ud en ce an d com

pr eh en si on .” Uni te d Stat es v. Loup er-M or ris , 67 2 F .3d 53 9, 5 56

(8 th Cir . 20 12 ) (i nt ern al qu ot at io n m ark s an d c it at io ns om it te d)

.

Tho m as arg ue s th at th e di st ric t co ur t sh ou ld ha ve rel ie d up on Uni te d St at es v.

Ja in

, 93 F.3 d 43 6 (8 th Ci r. 19 96 ), in is su in g it s in st ru ct io n on th e “ in te nt to de frau d”

el em en t. In Ja in

, ou r co ur t rev ers ed a de fen da nt ’s co nv ic ti on fo r m ai l frau d whe n th e

go ve rn m en t fai le d to pr ov id e an y ev id en ce th at th e vi ct im s su ffer ed ta ng ib le ha rm or

to ot he rwis e pr ov e th e de fen da nt ’s frau du le nt in te nt

. Id

. at 44 1- 42

. Tho m as as se rts

th at th is cas e req ui res th e g o v e r n men t to pr ov e an in te nt to cau se ha rm , r at he r th an

a si m pl e in te nt to de frau d. See id

. at 44 1. Bu t Jai n is an ho ne st -s erv ic es frau d cas e

th at is di st in ct fro m th e wire frau d c h arg es ag ai ns t Tho m as

. See id

. Thu s, Ja in is

in ap pl ic ab le

, de sp it e Tho m as ’s as se rti o n s to th e co nt rary. Here, th e di st ric t co ur t

in st ru ct ed th e jury th at “ [t]o act wit h i n t e n t t o de frau d m ean s to act kn owi ng ly an d

wit h th e in te nt to de cei ve so m eo ne fo r th e pu rp os e of br in gi ng ab ou t so m e fin an ci al

ga in to on es el f or an ot he r to th e de tri m en t of a no th er pe rs on .” R. Doc

. 10 8, at 20

.

Thi s in st ru ct io n is in acco rd a n c e w it h Eig ht h Ci rcu it la w. See Lou pe r-M or ris , 6 72

-3

-F.3 d at 55 6. As su ch

, th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t ab us e it s di sc ret io n in th e in st ru ct io n

it ga ve th e jury rega rd in g t he “ in te nt to de frau d” ele m en t o f wire frau d.

III.

W e ne xt co ns id er whe th er th e di st ric t co ur t erre d in al lo win g th e go ve rn m en t

to in tro du ce ev id en ce of a se pa rat e, su bs eq ue nt sc he m e in whi ch Tho m as at te m pt ed

to de frau d m or tg ag e le nd ers

. Pri or to tri al

, Tho m as fil ed a m ot io n in li m in e se ek in g

th e ex cl us io n, pu rs ua nt to Fed eral Ru le of Evi de nc e 40 4( b)

, of an y te st im on y rel at in g

to he r pa rti ci pa ti on in th is sc he m e. The ev id en ce co nc ern ed th e 20 07 pu rch as e of a

ho m e by th e gr an dm ot he r of Tho m as ’s ch il d. Tho m as se rv ed as th e real es ta te ag en t

on th e tra ns act io n. At tri al

, th e gr an dm ot he r te st ifi ed th at Tho m as en co ur ag ed he r to

fal si fy he r in co m e on lo an pa pe rwo rk to ob ta in a lo an an d ad vi se d he r to pr od uc e fak e

ren ta l ag reem en ts to su pp or t th e fal si fie d in co m e. The di st ric t co ur t de ni ed th e

m ot io n, al lo win g th e te st im on y as ev id en ce of in te nt or ab se nc e of m is ta ke

. Tho m as

as se rts th a t t h e d i s tri ct co ur t erre d in ad m it ti ng th is ev id en ce be cau se th e wit ne ss

pr ov id in g th is te st im on y

m ad e co nt rad ic to ry

st at em en ts an d th e ev id en ce was m or e

pr ejud ic ia l th an pr ob at iv e. W e rev i e w a di st ric t co ur t’s ad m is si on of Ru le 40 4( b)

ev id en ce fo r ab us e of di sc ret io n. Uni te d St at es v. Hawki ns

, 54 8 F.3 d 11 43

, 11 46 (8 th

Ci r. 20 08 ). “ W e co ns tr u e R u le 40 4( b) br oa dl y as a ru le of in cl us io n, an d we wil l

rev ers e on ly whe n su ch ev id en ce cl earl y ha d no be ari ng on th e cas e a nd was

in tro du ced so le ly to p ro ve th e de fen da nt ’s pr op en si ty to co m m it cri m in al act s.” Id

. (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d)

.

Und er Ru le 40 4 ( b ) (1 ), “ [e]vi de nc e of a cri m e, wro ng

, or ot he r act is no t

ad m is si bl e to pr ov e a pe rs on ’s ch arac te r in or de r to sh ow th at on a pa rti cu la r oc cas io n

th e pe rs on act ed in acco rd an ce wit h th e ch arac te r.” Bu t a co ur t m ay ad m it ev id en ce

of an ot he r wro ng or act whe n it is rel ev an t to a n y i s s u e i n th e tri al ot he r th an th e

de fen da nt ’s c riminal di sp os it io n. Uni t ed St at es v. Cl ax to n, 27 6 F.3 d 42 0, 42 3 (8 th

Ci r. 20 02 ). Perm is si bl e us es of th is ev id en ce inc lu de sh owi ng m ot iv e, op po rtu ni ty,

-4

-in te nt

, pr ep arat io n, pl an

, kn owl ed g e

, l a c k of m is ta ke

, id en ti ty, or la ck of acci de nt

.

Fed

. R. Evi d. 40 4( b) (2 ). W he n co ns id eri ng th e ad m is si bi li ty of Ru le 40 4( b) ev id en ce

fo r a pe rm is si bl e pu rp os e, a co ur t m us t de te rm in e th at th e ev id en ce is rel e v a n t

, is

si m il ar in ki nd an d no t to o rem ot e in ti m e, is su ffi ci en tl y su pp or te d by th e ev id en ce,

an d th e po te nt ia l pr ejud ic e do es no t su bs ta nt ia ll y ou twei gh th e pr ob at iv e v a lu e.

Hawki ns , 54 8 F .3d at 1 14 6- 47

.

The go ve rn m en t us ed th is e v i d en ce fo r th e pe rm is si bl e pu rp os es of sh owi ng

in te nt an d la ck of m is ta ke rat he r th an th e im pe rm is si bl e pu rp os e of pr op en si ty. The

ev id en ce al so m eet s th e ot he r req ui rem en ts f o r ad m is si bi li ty. Fi rs t, th e ev id en ce is

rel ev an t be cau se it he l p s p r o v e a co ns eq ue nt ia l is su e in th e cas e: whe th er Tho m as

in te nd ed to act frau du le nt ly. See Fed

. R. Evi d. 40 1 (“ Evi de nc e is rel ev an t if [] it ha s

an y te nd e n cy to m ak e a fact m or e or le ss pr ob ab le th an it wou ld be wit ho ut th e

ev id en ce; an d [] th e fact is of co ns eq ue nc e in de t e r mi n i ng th e act io n.” ). Tho m as

arg ue d at tri al th at sh e di d no t ha ve th e req ui si te frau du le nt in te nt to be co nv ic te d of

wire frau d a nd th is ev id en ce h el ps reb ut th at arg um en t.

Seco nd

, th e su bs eq ue nt frau du le nt sc he m e is si m il ar in ki nd an d no t to o rem ot e

in ti m e to be ad m it t e d. The sc he m es are si m il ar be cau se th ey bo th in vo lv e th e

m is rep res en ta ti on of in co m e to frau du le nt ly ob ta in lo an s. The su bs eq ue nt sc he m e is

no t to o rem ot e in ti m e be cau se th e co nd uc t fo r whi ch Tho m as was ch arg ed oc cu rred

in 20 06 an d th e tra ns act io n at is su e he re oc cu rred in 20 07

. No de fin it iv e ru le go ve rn s

ho w cl os e to th e ch arg ed ev en t an ot he r wro ng or act m us t be an d co ur ts sh ou ld ap pl y

a reas on ab le ne ss st an da rd on a cas e-b y -cas e ba si s. See Uni te d St at es v. Tho m as

, 39 8

F.3 d 1 05 8, 1 06 3 (8 th Cir . 20 05 ). A o ne -y ear pe rio d be twee n s ch em es sat is fie s t hi s

reas on ab le ne ss st an da rd

. See, e.g

., Uni te d St at es v. W in t, 97 4 F.2 d 96 1, 96 7 (8 th Ci r.

19 92 ) (h ol di ng th at a fiv e-year la ps e be twee n pr io r act an d ch arg ed cri m e was no t to o

rem ot e in ti m e to be ad m it te d un de r Ru le 40 4( b) ); se e al so Uni te d St at es v. Fran kl in

,

25 0 F.3 d 65 3, 65 9 (8 th Ci r. 20 01 ) (“ The cl os er in ti m e to th e cri m e ch arg ed

, th e m or e

-5

-li ke ly th e ev id en ce is to be ad m is si bl e; bu t we ha ve ap pr ov ed th e ad m is si on of ot he r

cri m es ’ ev id en ce fo r act s co m m it te d u p t o 1 3 years b efo re t he cri m e ch arg ed .”).

Thi rd

, s u f

f i ci en t ev id en ce ex is ts to al lo w t he jury to fin d th at th e su bs eq ue nt

sc he m e oc cu rred

. Tho m as arg ue s, in pa rt, th at th e d i s t r i ct co ur t sh ou ld no t ha ve

ad m it te d th e ev id en ce be cau se th e gr an dm oth er m ad e inc onsist en t st at em en ts

, na m el y

te ll in g Tho m as ’s th en -at to rn ey th at th e m or tg ag e co m pa ny, no t Tho m as

, ha d

e n c ou rag ed he r to su bm it fal se do cu m en ts

. Bu t th e di st ric t co ur t sh ou ld no t mak e

cred ib il it y de te rm in at io ns whe n de ci di ng whe th er to ad m it ev id en ce un de r Ru le

40 4( b) . See Hu dd le st on v. Uni te d St at es , 4 85 U.S. 68 1, 6 87 -9 0 (1 98 8) (ex pl ai ni ng

th at a di st ric t co ur t s h o u l d no t en ga ge in as se ss in g a wit ne ss ’s cred ib il it y whe n

m ak in g a n a dm is si bi li ty det erm in at io n u nd er Ru le 40 4( b) ).

Fi na ll y

, th e ris k of pr ejud ic e do es n o t su bs ta nt ia ll y ou twei gh th e pr ob at iv e

va lu e of th e ev id en ce of th e su bs eq ue nt frau du le nt sc he m e. W e gi ve th e di st ric t

co ur t’s de te rm in at io n th at th e ev id en ce was no t un fai rly pr ejud ic ia l gr eat de fere nc e,

an d no th in g in th e reco rd req ui res us to ov ert ur n t h i s f i n d in g. See Uni te d St at es v.

Ru iz , 41 2 F .3d 87 1, 8 81 (8 th Ci r. 20 05 ) (ex pl ai ni ng th at ap pe ll at e co ur ts gi ve gr eat

de fere nc e to a di st ric t co ur t’s ba la nc e of th e pr ob at iv e va lu e an d pr ejud ic ia l effe ct of

th e ch al le ng ed ev id en ce). W e th eref or e co nc lu de th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t ab us e it s

di sc ret io n b y

ad m it ti ng th is ev id en ce.

IV.

W e no w co ns id er whe th er th e di st ric t co ur t erre d in al lo win g th e go ve rn m en t

to in tro du ce ev id en ce rel at ed to Tho m as ’s un fil ed 20 06 ta x ret ur n. In an ot he r m ot io n

i n li m in e, Tho m as so ug ht th e ex cl us io n of an un fil ed 20 06 ta x ret ur n an d rel a t e d

te st im on y , a rg ui ng it was irr el ev an t an d pr ejud i c i a l b e c a us e it ha d ne ve r be en fil ed

wit h th e IRS or su b mi tt ed to m or tg ag e le nd ers

. Tho m as ’s acco un ta nt pr ep ared th e

ta x ret ur n an d ga ve it to Tho m as to fil e m an ua ll y

, al th ou gh Tho m as ne ve r m ad e su ch

-6

-a fil in g. The di st ric t co ur t de ni ed th e m ot io n, al lo win g th e ta x ret ur n as ev id en ce of

Tho m as ’s act ua l in co m e an d de te rm in in g th at it was no t un fai rly pr ejud ic ia l. Tho m as

as se rts th at th e ad m is si on of th e ta x ret ur n was in erro r be cau se it was bo th irr el ev an t

an d un fai rly pr ejud ic ia l as it was ne ve r fil ed an d th us ne ve r rep or te d as Tho m as ’s

act ua l in co m e. W e rev ie w a di st ric t co ur t’s ev id en ti ary ru li ng s fo r a b u s e of

dis cr et ion

, re ve rsin g “ on ly whe n an im pr op er ev id en ti ary ru li ng affe ct s th e subs ta nti al

rig ht s of th e de fen da nt

, or th e erro r ha d m or e th an a sl ig ht in flu en ce on th e ve rd ic t.”

Fi na n v . Goo d Ear th Too ls , Inc ., 56 5 F .3d 10 76 , 10 80 (8t h C ir. 2 00 9)

.

Und er th e Fed eral Ru le s of Evi de nc e, rel ev an t ev id en ce is ge ne ral ly ad m is si bl e

un le ss th e Co ns ti tu ti on

, a fed eral st at ut e, an ot he r ru le of ev id en ce, or ot he r Su pr em e

Co ur t Ru le req ui res it s ex cl us io n. Fed . R . Ev id . 4 02

. Evi de nc e is rel ev an t if it ha s

an y te nd en cy to m ak e a fact of co ns eq ue nc e m or e or le ss pr ob ab le

. Fed

. R. Evi d. 40 1.

Und er Ru le 40 3, rel ev an t ev id en ce m ay be ex cl ud ed if it s pr ejud ic ia l effe ct

su bs ta nt ia ll y ou twei gh s it s pr ob at iv e va lu e. Fed

. R. Evi d. 40 3. “ Evi de nc e is no t

un fai rly pr ejud ic ia l be cau se it te nd s to pr ov e gu il t, bu t be cau se it te nd s to en co ur ag e

th e jury to fin d gu il t fro m im pr op er reas on in g. W he th er th ere was un fai r pr ejud ic e

de pe nd s on whe th er th ere was an un du e te nd en cy to su gg es t de ci si on on an im pr op er

ba si s.” Uni te d S t a t es v. Farr in gt on

, 49 9 F.3 d 85 4, 85 9 (8 th Ci r. 20 07 ) (in te rn al

qu ot at io n m ark s om it te d )

. Bu t “ [s ]im pl y be cau se ev id en ce is pr ejud ic ia l do es no t

m ean th at i t m

us t be ex cl ud ed

, an d gr eat de fere nc e is gi ve n th e di st ric t co ur t’s

ba la nc in g of th e pr ob at iv e va lu e an d pr ejud ic ia l im pa ct of th e ev id en ce.” Ru iz

, 41 2

F.3 d a t 8 81 (ci ta ti on om it te d)

.

Tho m as ’s 20 06 un fil ed tax re tur n is re le va nt ev id en ce be cau se Tho m as ’s act ua l

in co m e is in te gr al to th e ch arg es ag ai ns t h e r

. Th e go ve rn m en t al le ge d Tho m as

mi s r ep res en te d he r in co m e fo r 20 06 on lo an do cu m en ts

, an d th e un fil ed ta x re t u r n

m ak es th e go ve rn m en t’s al le ga ti on s m or e pr ob ab le

. See Fed

. R. Evi d. 40 1. Tho m as

arg ue s th at ad m it ti ng th e ev id en ce res ul te d in un fai r pr ejud ic e be cau se th ere was no

ev id en ce th e ta x ret ur n was fil ed no r an y an ot he r ev id en ce th at Tho m as rep or te d th is

-7

-in co m e el se whe re. Bu t th e jury he ard te st im on y th at th e ta x ret ur n rem ai ne d un fil ed

,

affo rd in g th e juro rs th e op po rtu ni ty to de te rm in e th e ap pr op ria te weig ht to as si gn th is

ev id en ce. Tho m as ’s un fai r pr ejud ic e arg um en t i s, i n es se nc e, ba se d on th e d am ag e

th e ta x ret ur n do es to he r cas e. Bu t “[u ]n f a i r p reju di ce do es no t oc cu r

. . . m erel y

be cau se a pi ece of ev id en ce da m ag es a de fen da nt ’s cas e.” Uni te d St at es v. Nad eau

,

59 8 F

. 3 d 9 66

, 96 9 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 ). Tho m as pr es en ts no ot he r arg um en t to

de m on st rat e th at th e ad m is si on of ta x ret ur n en co ur ag ed th e jury to reac h a ve rd ic t on

an im pr op er ba si s an d th us was un fai rly pr ejud ic ia l. And th e di st ric t co ur t care fu ll y

co ns id ered th is arg um en t be fo re de ci di ng to ad m it th e ev id en ce. Not hi n g i n t h e

reco rd req ui res us to de pa rt fro m th e de fere nc e we affo rd th e di st ric t co ur t’s ba la nc in g

of th e pr ob at iv e va lu e an d pr ejud ic ia l effe ct of th is ev id en ce. See Ru iz

, 41 2 F.3 d at

88 1. The ad m is si on of th is ta x ret ur n was no t an im pr op er ru li ng th at “ affe ct [ed ] th e

su b s t a n t i al rig ht s of th e de fen da nt ” or “ ha d m or e th an a sl ig ht in flu en ce on th e

ve rd ic t.” See Fi na n, 56 5 F.3 d at 10 80

. The di st ric t co ur t th us di d no t ab us e it s

di sc ret io n i n a dm it ti ng th e ev id en ce re la te d t o t he un fil ed 20 06 tax ret ur n.

V.

W e ne xt co ns id er whe th er th e di st ric t co ur t erre d by al lo win g th e go ve rn m en t

to in tro du ce ev id en ce an d arg ue du r i n g c l o s i ng th at Tho m as sh ou ld be co nv ic te d

ba se d on a fai lu re to di sc lo se de bt s. At t ria l, Th om as ob jecte d to th e go ve rn m en t’s

in tro du ct io n of ev id en ce rel at ed to un li st ed de bt s on he r lo an ap pl ic at io n, as se rti ng

th at th e in tro du ct io n of su ch ev id en ce am ou nt ed to a co ns tru ct iv e am en dm en t to th e

su pe rs ed in g in di ct m en t. Tho m as as se rte d th at th e go ve rn m en t im pe rm is si bl y arg ue d

th a t t h e ju ry co ul d co nv ic t Tho m as on Co un ts II an d III of th e in di ct m en t ba se d on

ev id en ce of an un rep or te d de bt

, ev id en ce whi ch was on ly refe rred to in Co un t I of th e

in di c t ment

. The di st ric t co ur t ov erru le d th is ob jecti on

, fin di ng no co ns tru ct iv e

am en dm en t oc cu rred

. Tho m as as se rts th at th e di st ric t co ur t erre d be cau se it al lo wed

th e jury to co nv ic t Tho mas of two co un ts in th e in di ct m en t ba se d on ev id en ce on ly

art ic ul at ed in on e se pa rat e co un t, re su lt in g i n a co ns tru ct iv e am en dm en t.

-8

-A co ns tru ct iv e am en dm en t of an in di ct men t i s a di rect vi ol at io n of th e Fi fth

Am en dm en t an d is rev ers ib le erro r pe r se

. Uni te d St at es v. Harri s, 34 4 F.3 d 80 3, 80 4

(8 th Ci r. 20 03 ) (p er cu ria m ). “ In rev ie win g an a p pe al ba se d on a cl ai m of

co ns tru ct iv e am en dm en t, we co ns id er whe th er th e ad m is si on of ev id en ce or th e jury

in st ru ct io ns crea te d a ‘sub st an ti al li ke li ho od ’ th at th e de fen da nt was co nv ic te d of an

un ch arg ed of

fen se .” Uni te d St at es v. W hi rlwi nd So ld ie r, 49 9 F.3 d 86 2, 87 0 (8 th Ci r.

20 07 ).

“ A co ns tru ct iv e am en dm en t oc cu rs whe n th e es se nt ia l el em en ts of th e of fen se

as ch arg ed in th e in di ct m en t are al te red in su ch a m an ne r—o fte n th ro ug h th e ev id en ce

pr es en te d at tri al or th e jury in st ru c ti on s— th at th e jury is al lo wed to co nv ic t th e

de f e nd an t of an of

fen se di ffer en t fro m or in ad di ti on to th e of fen se s ch arg ed in th e

in di ct m en t.” Id

. Here, no co ns tru ct iv e am en dm en t oc cu rred be cau se Tho m as was no t

co nv ic te d of a cri m e di f

f e r e n t fro m th os e ch arg ed in th e in di ct m en t. Tho m as was

ch arg ed wit h an d co nv ic te d of wire frau d an d th e ad di ti on al ev id en ce di d no t ch an ge

th e es se nt ia l e l e men t s of th is cri m e. Thi s cas e is di st in ct fro m cas es whe re co ur ts

ha ve fo un d co ns tru ct iv e am en dm en ts

. S e e

, e

. g., St iro ne v. Uni te d St at es , 3 61 U.S.

21 2, 21 7 (1 96 0) (fi nd in g co ns tru ct iv e am en dm en t whe n jury co ul d ha ve co nv ic te d

de fen da nt ba se d on in te rfer en ce wit h sh ip m en ts in to or ou t of st at e whe n in di ct m en t

on ly al le ge d in te rfer en ce wit h sh ip m en ts in to st at e); Uni te d Stat es v. Yeo, 73 9 F.2d

38 5, 38 6- 87 (8 th Ci r. 19 84 ) (fi nd in g co ns tru ct iv e am en dm en t whe n jury co ul d ha ve

co nv ic te d def

en da nt of ex to rti on fo r co ll ect in g deb t from in di vi du al s ot he r th an th e

on e n am ed in th e in di ct m en t).

A l t ho ug h Tho m as la be ls he r arg um en t as on e ch al le ng in g a co ns tru c t i v e

am en dm en t, he r cl ai m s are m or e ap pr op ria te ly co ns id ered as al le gi ng a v a r i an ce.

“ The ba si c di ffer en ce be twee n a co ns tru ct iv e am en dm en t an d a va ria nc e is th is : a

co ns tru ct iv e ame n d men t ch an ge s th e ch arg e, whi le th e ev id en ce rem ai ns th e sa m e;

a va ria nc e ch an ge s th e ev id en ce, whi le th e ch arg e rem ai ns th e sa m e.” Uni te d St at es

-9

-v. St uc ke y

, 22 0 F.3 d 97 6, 98 1 ( 8 t h Ci r. 20 00 ). Bec au se Tho m as ’s arg um en t is

, in

es se nc e, a va ria nc e arg u men t

, w e no w co ns id er whe th er th e di st ric t co ur t erre d in

de te rm in in g no fat al va ria nc e oc cu r r e d

. W hi le “ [a] co ns tru ct iv e am en dm en t is

r e v e r si bl e erro r pe r se

, [] a va ria nc e is su bjec t to th e ha rm le ss erro r ru le .” Id

. “A

va ria nc e be twee n th e in di ct m en t an d pr oo f at tri al req ui res re v e r s a l of a co nv ic ti on

on ly if th e va ria nc e act ua ll y pr ejud ic ed th e de fen da nt

. The pr im ary co ns id erat io n in

th is de te rm in at io n i s wh et he r th e in di ct m en t fu ll y an d fa irl y ap pr is ed th e d efen da nt

of th e ch arg es he or sh e m us t m eet at tri al .” Uni te d St at es v. Beg na ud

, 78 3 F.2 d 14 4,

14 8 (8 th Cir . 19 86 ) (ci ta ti on om it te d)

.

The di st ric t co ur t co ns id ered whe th er th e in tro du ct io n of th e un rep or te d de bt s

am ou nt ed to a va ria nc e, ul ti m at el y co nc lu di ng th at no fat al va ria nc e h ad oc cu rred :

[W] e are ta lk in g ab ou t th es e ap p li cat io ns th at Ms

. Tho m as fil le d ou t on

th es e fo ur lo an s. It’s no t so m et hi ng un ex pe ct ed

, gi ve n th at th e do cu m en ts

cam e fro m he r own ha nd an d th at Ms

. Tho m as ’s la wy ers ha ve ha d a ll of

th e do cu m en ts fro m th e be gi nn in g. And

, in fact

, th os e do cu m en ts are in

ev i d e n c e wit ho ut ob

jecti on fro m Ms

. Tho m as

. The fact th at th ey are in

e v i de nc e, it se em s to m e, m ean s th at wha te ve r th ey sa y

, wha te ve r is in

th ere, is in pl ay

. . . . The re is so m e di ffer en ce, th ere is so m e va ria nc e

be twee n th e wor ds of th e in di ct m en t an d th e pr oo f th at ’s pr op o s e d to

co m e in , b ut I do no t b el ie ve th at it is a fat al va ria nc e or th at it is ov erl y

p r e jud ic ia l to Ms

. Tho m as

, gi ve n th e so ur ce of th e va ria nc e in t h o s e

do cu m en ts an d g iv en th e la w [of th e Eig ht h C irc ui t].

R. Doc . 15 6, at 31 6- 17

.

W e ag ree t ha t n o fa ta l v ari an ce o ccu rred be cau se , eve n wi th th e in tro du ct io n

of ev id en ce no t sp eci fic al ly m en ti on ed in th e in di ct m e n t i n rel at io n to th es e two

co un ts

, Tho m as was fu ll y an d fai rly ap pr is ed of th e ch arg es sh e ha d to de fen d ag ai ns t

at tri al

. The do cu m en ts at is su e ha d al read y be en en te red in to ev id en ce an d th e

in di ct m en t m en ti on ed th e sp eci fic al le ga ti on wit h res pe ct to on e co un t. See Beg na ud

,

-1 0-78 3 F.2 d at 14 8 (fi nd in g no fat al va ria nc e whe n th e in di ct m en t se t ou t two sp eci fic

rep res en ta ti on s m ad e in fu rth eran ce of a sc he m e to de frau d an d pr os ecu ti on of fere d

ev id en ce o f, an d ju ry

in st ru ct io n a ll owe d ju ry

to co ns id er, o th er m is rep res en ta ti on s

de fen d a n t m ad e). And th e go ve rn m en t ne ve r wav ered in th e th eo ry of th e cas e it

pr es en te d at tria l th at Tho m as co m m it te d wire frau d by m is rep res en ti ng he r in co m e

on lo an do cu m en ts

. See Uni te d St at es v. Ada m s, 60 4 F.3 d 59 6, 60 0 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 )

( “W e co nc lu de no va ria nc e oc cu rred ei th er, pa rti cu la rly be cau se th e go ve rn men t

ne ve r wav ered in it s t he or y of t he cas e at tri al

. . . .”). Beca us e Tho m as ’s arg um en t

fai ls un de r ei th er a co ns tru ct iv e am en dm en t or va ria nc e th eo ry

, we affi rm th e di st ric t

co ur t o n t hi s cl ai m

.

VI.

Fi na ll y

, we co ns id er whe th er th e di st ric t co ur t erre d in po ll in g in di vi du al juro rs

an d is su in g an All en ch arg e to th e jury. Afte r ro ug hl y si x ho ur s of de li be rat io n, th e

jury se nt a no te to th e co ur t in di cat in g th at it was de ad lo ck ed

. The co ur t br ou gh t th e

jury ba ck to th e co ur tro om an d be ga n po ll in g in di vi du al juro rs to de te rm in e if fu rth er

de li b e rat io ns co ul d pr od uc e a ve rd ic t. The co ur t on ly po ll ed th ree juro rs be fo re

de te rm in in g th at th e no te di d no t ex pr es s th e un an im ou s vi ews of th e jury. The co ur t

th en is su ed an All en ch arg e to th e jury ev en th ou gh th e go ve rn m en t ha d no t req ue st ed

it an d Tho m as op po se d it

. Afte r t w o ad di ti on al ho ur s, th e jury ret ur ne d a gu il ty

ve rd i c t

. Tho m as as se rts th at th is in st ru ct io n an d qu es ti on in g of th e juro rs ha d th e

im pe rm is si bl e effe ct of co erci ng ju r o rs in to reac hi ng a ve rd ic t an d si ng li ng ou t

sp eci fic juro rs

. W e rev ie w ch al le ng ed jury in st ru ct io ns

, in cl ud in g All en ch arg es

, fo r

ab us e o f di sc ret io n. Un it ed Sta te s v . Evan s, 4 31 F.3d 34 2, 3 47 (8t h C ir. 2 00 5)

.

“ An All en -ch arg e is a su pp le m en ta l jury in st ru ct io n th at a d v i se s de ad lo ck ed

juro rs to reco ns id er th ei r po si ti on s.” Uni te d St at es v. W al rat h, 32 4 F.3 d 96 6, 97 0 (8 th

Ci r. 20 03 ) (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s omi t t ed ). “ Su pp le m en ta l jury in st ru ct io ns are

pe rm is si bl e, so lo ng as th ey are no t co erci ve .” Uni te d St at es v. Yba rra, 58 0 F.3 d 73 5,

-1 1-7 3 8 ( 8t h Ci r. 20 09 ). “ [F]ou r el em en ts be ar on whe th er an All en ch arg e ha d an

im pe rm is si bl y co erci ve effe ct on th e jury: 1) th e co n t e n t o f t he in st ru ct io n, 2) th e

le ng th of de li be rat io n a fte r th e All en ch arg e, 3) th e to ta l l en gt h o f de li be rat io n, an d

4) an y in di ci a in th e reco rd of co erci on or pr es su re up on th e jury.” Uni te d St at es v.

Tho m as

, 94 6 F.2 d 73

, 76 (8 th Ci r. 19 91 ) (in t e r na l qu ot at io n m ark s om it te d)

.

Add it io na ll y

, an in qu iry as to th e di vi si on of th e jury fo r th e pu rp os es of de te rm in in g

if fu rth er d e l i b e r a ti on s wou ld be fru it fu l is no t co erci ve in th e sa m e m an ne r as an

in qu iry s eek in g to de te rm in e ho w t he jury s ta nd s o n t h e mer it s. See Lowen fie ld v.

Ph el ps

, 48 4 U.S. 23 1, 24 0 (1 99 8)

. And All en ch arg es an d acco m pa nyin g st at em en ts

are l e s s l i k e l y t o be co erci ve whe n th ey do no t si ng le ou t a pa rti cu la r si de of

de li be rat io ns

. See Uni te d St at es v. W as hi ng to n, 25 5 F.3 d 48 3, 48 5- 86 (8 th Ci r. 20 01 )

(fi nd in g All en ch arg e was no t co erci ve whe n in st ru ct io n di d no t refe ren ce ei th er pa rty

or di rect th e jury to fi nd for a pa rti cu la r pa rty).

Not hi ng in th e reco rd in di cat e s th at th e All en ch arg e co erce d th e jury in to

ret ur ni ng a ve rd ic t. Fi rs t, th e co nt en t of th e ch arg e re mi n d e d th e juro rs of th ei r

ob li ga ti on s to ex am in e th e ev id en ce an d qu es ti on s su bm it te d to th em wit h a m in d

to ward reac hi ng an ag reem en t, bu t rem in de d th em th at th ey sh ou ld no t su rren de r th ei r

ho ne st co nv ic ti on s an d gi ve in to op po si ng op in io ns

. The All en ch arg e al so rem in de d

th e juro rs th at “ a hu ng jury is acce pt ab le to th e la w, jus t li ke a ve rd ic t of no t gu il ty or

gu il ty. All th ree of th os e are acce pt ab le ou tc om es in th e cas e.” R. Doc

. 15 9, at 83 7.

Seco nd

, th e juro rs de li be rat ed fo r a fu rth er two ho ur s aft er th e A l le n ch arg e,

in di cat in g th at th ey di d no t feel co erce d in to im m ed ia te ly ret ur ni ng a ve rd ic t. Thi rd

,

th e to ta l le ng th of de li be rat io ns was ro ug hl y ei gh t ho ur s: si x ho ur s pr io r to th e All en

ch arg e an d a n a dd it io na l t wo h ou rs aft er t he in st ru ct io n. Th e tr ia l l as te d fo ur an d a

ha lf da y s. The le ng th of th e tri al an d t h e to ta l pe rio d of de li be rat io n were no t so

di sp ro po rti on at e a s t o rai se an in fere nc e of co erci on

. See Tho m as

, 94 6 F.2 d at 76

(fi nd in g no in fere nc e of co erci on whe n jury de li be rat ed fo r a to ta l of ni ne ho ur s aft er

a two -d ay tri a l ) ; U n i t ed St at es v. Sm it h, 63 5 F.2 d 71 6, 72 0- 22 (8 th Ci r. 19 80 )

(fi nd in g fo ur ho ur s of to ta l de li be rat io n fo r a two -d ay tri al di d no t rai se an in fere nc e

-1 2-of di sc riminat io n)

. Fi na ll y

, th ere i s n o ot he r “ in di ci a in th e reco rd of co erci on or

pr es su re up on th e jury.” The di st ric t co ur t’s po ll in g of in di vi du al juro rs was si m pl y

an at te m pt t o d e te rm in e whe th er fu rth er de li be rat io ns wou ld be he lp fu l in reac hi ng

a ve rd ic t. The jud ge in te nd ed to po ll t h e e n ti re jury, bu t on ly ne ed ed to po ll th ree

juro rs be fo re co nc lu di ng t h a t f ur th er de li be rat io ns co ul d be fru it fu l. He di d no t

co nt in ue po ll in g th e en ti re jury p r e c is el y be cau se he was co nc ern ed ab ou t si ng li ng

ou t a pa rti cu la r si de of th e de li be rat io ns

. Thi s is ev id en ced by th e jud ge ’s st at em en t

to th e jury th at “ I’m no t go in g to po ll th e res t of y ou be cau se I do n’t wan t to

- - I do n’t

wan t p e o p l e s p e ak in g or to gi ve an y in di cat io n of ho w th e jury m ig ht st an d on th e

is su e,” an d hi s st at em en t t o t h e a t t or ne y s th at “ I ab an do ne d m id st ream m y effo rt at

po ll in g ev eryone be cau se I gr ew co nc ern ed th at th e jury in ad ve rte nt ly m ig ht be

sp eak in g to us ab ou t th ei r vi ews on t h e merit s.” R. Doc . 1 59 , a t 83 4- 35 , 8 38

. W e

th eref or e co nc lu de th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t ab us e it s di sc ret io n in is su in g an All en

ch arg e an d p ol li ng in di vi du al juro rs

.

VII.

Fo r th e fo reg oi ng reas on s, we af fir m th e jud gm en t o f th e d is tri ct co ur t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-1 3-