Opinion ID: 217641
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: VarianceOne vs. Many Conspiracies

Text: The second superseding indictment alleged a single conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud and launder the proceeds. Mr. Fishman contends that there were a minimum of three . . . or more conspiracies demonstrated at trial. Some of the players were Sloan DuPont, Terry Nelson, David Watson, Peter Zaccagnino, Deno Nerozzi, Sam Kram, Mr. Davidson, Mr. Searles, Mr. Thornburgh, among others. Opening Br. of Appellant at 58. In his reply brief, Mr. Fishman makes a more specific argument, alleging that there were at least three separate conspiraciesone involving Mr. Zaccagnino, the Caribou program, and the Chinese bond conspiracy involving Norah Cali, the claimed niece of Alan Greenspan. He suggests there was perhaps a fourth activity, which he claims was not a conspiracy at all, involving the purchase of bonds from Mr. Fishman by a woman named Barbara Johnson. Mr. Fishman concedes that perhaps the Zaccagnino conspiracy was peripheral to the Caribou scheme, but steadfastly maintains the others were entirely separate. Mr. Fishman failed to raise this issue in his Rule 29 motion below. Where `an indictment charges a single conspiracy, but the evidence presented at trial proves only the existence of multiple conspiracies,' a variance occurs. United States v. Caldwell, 589 F.3d 1323, 1328 (10th Cir.2009) (quoting United States v. Carnagie, 533 F.3d 1231, 1237 (10th Cir.2008)). In reviewing a claimed variance, `we view the evidence and draw all reasonable inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to the government, asking whether a reasonable jury could have found [the defendant] guilty of the charged conspirac[y] beyond a reasonable doubt.' Id. (quoting Carnagie, 533 F.3d at 1237). We consider the existence of a variance that would support acquittal [a]s a matter of law that we review de novo. Id. (citing United States v. Griffin, 493 F.3d 856, 862 (7th Cir.2007) (We treat a conspiracy variance claim as an attack on the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the jury's finding that each defendant was a member of the same conspiracy.)). Because it is difficult to distinguish between a single large conspiracy and several smaller conspiracies, we will generally defer to the jury's determination of the matter. Id. at 1329. In reviewing a jury finding that a single, rather than multiple, conspiracy existed, a focal point of the analysis is whether the alleged coconspirators' conduct exhibited interdependence. United States v. Edwards, 69 F.3d 419, 432 (10th Cir.1995). Co-conspirators are interdependent when they inten[d] to act together for their shared mutual benefit within the scope of the conspiracy charged. United States v. Evans, 970 F.2d 663, 671 (10th Cir. 1992). Circumstantial evidence alone is often sufficient to demonstrate interdependence; indeed, it is often the only evidence available to the government. Caldwell, 589 F.3d at 1329. Moreover, a single act can be sufficient to demonstrate interdependence. Id. In this case, there was substantial evidence of interdependence. Indeed, each member of the conspiracy had his own particular roleMr. Thornburgh and Mr. Davidson were the salesmen of the bonds, Mr. Thornburgh in the United States and Mr. Davidson abroad, primarily in New Zealand and Australia; Mr. Searles was the banker and organizer, having established Caribou as the shell corporation and serving as its president; a man named John Clancy was the authenticator, charged with ensuring the purported authenticity of the bonds; Mr. Fishman was a central figure, interacting with all of the other conspirators and performing many essential functions. There were occasional modifications of personnel and product. Mr. Zaccagnino dropped out of the conspiracy when he closed Two-Thirds International. [9] The focus of the bonds shifted from railroad bonds to Chinese bonds as the conspiracy wore on. But the record is replete with evidence that the conspirators operated in a very interdependent and complementary way. Even when Mr. Thornburgh and Mr. Searles had a falling out of some kind, they continued to operate within the conspiracy, with Mr. Fishman operating as a go-between. [10] As we have stated before: The goals of all the participants need not be congruent for a single conspiracy to exist, so long as their goals are not at cross purposes. . . . [A] single conspiracy is not transformed into multiple conspiracies merely by virtue of the fact that it may involve two or more phases or spheres of operation, so long as there is sufficient proof of mutual dependence and assistance. United States v. Harrison, 942 F.2d 751, 756 (10th Cir.1991) (quoting United States v. Maldonado-Rivera, 922 F.2d 934, 963 (2d Cir.1990)). The common denominators in all these programs were Mr. Fishman, Mr. Thornburgh and Mr. Searles. They may have had greater or lesser involvement with particular investors, but they all used similar paperwork and tacticssafekeeping depositories, bonds (first railroad, then Chinese), bond authenticators, and foreign program managers. A single conspiracy does not splinter into multiple conspiracies because members come and go. See United States v. Coleman, 7 F.3d 1500, 1503 (10th Cir.1993) (finding sufficient evidence of defendant's participation in conspiracy even though she began her participation in the conspiracy two years after venture had begun, participated for only two months, and the conspiracy continued for six months after she was arrested); United States v. Brewer, 630 F.2d 795, 800 (10th Cir.1980) (A conspiracy is not terminated simply by a turnover in personnel.). Mr. Fishman also claims the government used evidence of conduct for which he was never criminally charged, and suggests this somehow indicates there were multiple conspiracies or a prohibited variance. He also appears to argue that, because Mr. Zaccagnino and Norah Cali were not charged as members of the Caribou conspiracy, any activity he had with them was pursuant to a separate conspiracy or conspiracies. We disagree. The second superseding indictment specifically stated that there were more conspirators, known and unknown, and the fact that not all were charged does not necessarily mean they operated in a separate conspiracy. As we have stated before: The government need not show that each conspirator knew of or had contact with all other members. Nor need it show that the conspirators knew all of the details of the conspiracy or participated in every act in furtherance of the conspiracy. Changes in the cast of characters do not preclude a finding of a single overarching conspiracy. United States v. Smith, 413 F.3d 1253, 1276 (10th Cir.2005) (quoting United States v. Soto-Beniquez, 356 F.3d 1, 10 (1st Cir.2004)), overruled on other grounds, United States v. Hutchinson, 573 F.3d 1011 (10th Cir.2009). Accordingly, we find no evidence of a variance; rather, the record amply supports the jury's determination that there was only a single conspiracy. [11]