Opinion ID: 2971364
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: A Review of the Applicable Law.

Text: As indicated, a district court ruling setting aside a jury verdict based on insufficient evidence begins with Jackson v. Virginia, supra. In that context, a trial judge in considering a Rule 29 motion may neither weigh conflicting evidence nor consider the credibility of witnesses and to do otherwise would allow the judge to invade the province of the jury as the sole finder of fact in a jury trial. United States v. Adamo, 742 F.2d 927, 935 (6th Cir. 1984), cert. denied sub nom, Freeman v. United States, 469 U.S. 1193 (1985). Moreover, “[a] defendant claiming ‘insufficiency of evidence bears a very heavy burden.’” United States v. Vannerson, 786 F.2d 221, 225 (6th Cir. 1986). IV. A Summary Review of the District Court’s Ruling. The district court published an 18-page opinion granting the Rule 29 motion for an acquittal. We cite several passages from the opinion which demonstrate that the district court engaged in a credibility exercise in concluding that the evidence was insufficient to support Bennett’s conviction on Count 2. First, the district court elected to summarize the testimony of the defendant as having some impact in his decision. Specifically, the district court related as follows: David Bennett testified that he joined Labadie Oldsmobile in 1989. D. Bennett Tr. at 4-5. Bennett stated that although he had the authority to hire and fire most people, Gary Labadie had made clear that certain “sacred cows” were to be left alone, such as Dawn Bukowski, Jean Toth, and Walter Wittkopp. Id. at 8-9. Bob Mazzara also came to be known as another employee who was beyond Bennett’s (Case No. 03-1819) authority. Id. at 9-10. Bennett identified Defense Exhibit 1 as a payroll notice form, stated that it was a required part of adding employees to the payroll, and stated that either he or a department head would have had the authority to fill out the form and have an employee added to the payroll. Id. at 12-13. Bennett testified that although he had become aware of Clyde Fisher’s “arrangement” through Gary Labadie, he initially overlooked it because Clyde Fisher was scheduled to be returned to his original porter status due to health problems, and his income would then have been reported on a 1099 form. Id. at 14. Bennett also noted that Clyde Fisher’s arrangement appeared to have the blessing of Gary Labadie, which suggested to Bennett that he should not interfere. Id. at 26-27. Bennett denied ever telling Dawn Bukowski to add either Clyde or Mary Fisher to the Labadie Oldsmobile payroll, and also stated that he and Walter Wittkopp had never discussed the Fishers. Id. at 15. He also denied ever knowing that Clyde Fisher was receiving Social Security disability benefits, and stated that he signed Mary Fisher’s 401(k) documents in his separate capacity as trustee for the plan. Id. at 15-16. JA at 24-25. Secondly, we disagree with the district court’s assessment of Dawn Bukowski’s testimony in the following passage from the district court’s opinion: The problem for the government in this case is that the available evidence demonstrates Bennett’s alleged involvement in this scheme to have been much more remote. There is no payroll slip for Mary Fisher and no document tying Bennett to Mary Fisher’s addition to the payroll. Dawn Bukowski has no specific recollection of receiving any application or payroll materials for Mary Fisher. The government makes much of Bukowski’s claim early in her testimony that the defendant was the one who gave Mary Fisher’s materials to her, but cross-examination revealed that this assertion, to the extent it suggested a specific recollection of the event, had no basis in fact. At best, Bukowski stated that the materials must have come from Bennett because all such paperwork generally passed through him first. That alone, however, is not the sort of substantial evidence from which a jury could infer that Bennett caused the false statement or representations of Mary Fisher to be transmitted to the Social Security Administration. See Martin, 375 F.2d at 957. JA at 33 (emphasis added). The cross-examination of Dawn Bukowski to which the district court made reference follows: Q All right. Now I understood you to testify on direct examination that -- (Case No. 03-1819) correct me if I’m wrong -- but I understood you to say to begin with that you received government’s exhibit 20,4 the application for employment in the name of Mary Fisher, you received it? A What do you mean I received it? I guess I don’t understand. Q Well did you obtain the application for employment from somewhere? A Yes. Q Where? A I would have had to have gotten it from Mr. Bennett. Q When? A At the time the person was hired or filled out the application. Q Which was? A It would have been in 1993 after the person filled out the paper. Q Well do you remember? Do you have a specific independent recollection of receiving this application? A This specific paper? Q That’s right. A Do I remember this specific paper? Q Exactly. A I guess -- I have so many, I guess -- no, I don’t remember this specific one. 4 Government Exhibit 20 is a printed application for employment to work at Labadie and it set forth Mary Fisher as the name of the applicant for employment and was dated 4-26-93. The application also contained the Social Security Number XXX-XX-XXXX and listed the date of birth as 11-16-42. The application also indicated that the employment desired was for cleaning and that the applicant could start at any time. The application also included the question “are you employed now” and the answer was “no.” (Case No. 03-1819) Q All right. I’ll ask you the same question regarding government exhibit 22.5 A I guess you’re asking me to exactly remember when I got the paper? Q When and where, under what circumstances, where you were; do you remember where you were? A Not the exact place I was, no. Q How about 236 dated April 3, 1997; almost four years later; do you remember that? A No. Q Exhibit 24,7 we’re back to April of ‘93 again, I’ll ask you if you have a specific recollection of receiving that? A No. Q Government’s exhibit 25,8 we’re into January 1995, I’ll ask you if you remember that. A No. 5 Government’s Exhibit 22 was a completed Form W-4 entitled “Employee’s Withholding Allowance Certificate” and was signed by Mary E. Fisher on April 26, 1993 and using the Social Security Number of XXX-XX-XXXX. See JA 119. 6 Government’s Exhibit 23 is similar to Government’s Exhibit 22. It is also an “Employee’s Withholding Allowance Certificate” and bears the signature of Mary E. Fisher on April 3, 1997 and using the Social Security Number of XXX-XX-XXXX. See JA 120. 7 Government’s Exhibit 24 is entitled “Employment Eligibility Verification (Form 1-9)” and bears the signature of Mary E. Fisher on the date of April 26, 1993 and using the Social Security Number of XXX-XX-XXXX. See JA 121. 8 Government’s Exhibit 25 is a form issued by the Penn Mutual Life Insurance Company and entitled “Diversifier II” and relates to the 401(k) Savings Plan for Labadie and contains the signature of Mary Fisher and D.E. Bennett. See JA 122. (Case No. 03-1819) Q Exhibit 26,9 same question. A No. Q 27?10 A No. Q 28?11 We’re into February of ‘97. A No. Q 29,12 February of ‘96? A No. Q And this attendance record, we don’t know when that was generated, right? A No. Q You don’t know where it came from? A I know it was generated, but it doesn’t have the year on it. 9 Government’s Exhibit 26 is entitled “Labadie Olds-Cadillac-GMC 401(k) Savings Plan Compensation Reduction Agreement” and lists the employee as Mary E. Fisher and contains the signature of Mary E. Fisher and D.E. Bennett with the date of 1-5-95. See JA 123. 10 Government’s Exhibit 27 is the “Beneficiary Designation” for the employer Labadie with Mary E. Fisher as the participating employee and listing Clyde L. Fisher as the primary beneficiary and identifying Clyde Fisher as the spouse of the participating employee. The form was signed by Mary E. Fisher on 1-5-95 and her signature was witnessed by David Zorn. The signature of the defendant David Bennett does not appear on Government’s Exhibit 27. See JA 124. 11 Government’s Exhibit 28 is entitled “Employee’s Michigan Withholding Exemption Certificate State of Michigan - Department of Treasury” and is signed by Mary E. Fisher using the same Social Security Number and date of birth as used previously. The defendant David Bennett’s signature does not appear on the exhibit. See JA 125. 12 Government’s Exhibit 29 is a Labadie document requiring all employees to provide in the case of emergency the person to notify. Mary Fisher is listed the employee and the person to notify in the case of an emergency is listed as Clyde Fisher. No signatures appear on the form. See JA 126. (Case No. 03-1819) Q So there’s no way you could tell when or under what circumstances you got this? A I created it. I mean I didn’t get this from anyone. JA at 243-45 (all footnotes added). On redirect, the following clarifying testimony from Dawn Bukowski was developed: Q I would like you to look back at exhibits 20, 22, 23 and 24. Do you have those? A Yes. Q And you have indicated on cross examination you didn’t remember all the exact circumstances under which you received those documents, is that correct? A That’s correct. Q Are you confident that you received those documents from Mr. Bennett? A I work directly for him and I would have had to have sent them off, but do I remember exactly? No. Q That’s a different question. Are you confident you would have received them from Mr. Bennett? A Yes. Q Because you worked directly for him? A Yes. Q These are the kind of documents he would give you? A Yes. Q He’s the one who told you to put Mary Fisher on the payroll? A (Pausing) Q Let me ask you in a different way. Was it your job to set up the payroll? (Case No. 03-1819) A Yes. Q For the person? A Yes. Q And Mr. Bennett was the person who would have you set up payroll for various people. A Yes. Q You said on cross examination everything had to run by his desk. A Yes. Q In order to get to you? A Yes. JA at 254-55. We disagree with the district court’s assessment of Dawn Butkowski’s testimony. Clearly, a jury would have been justified in reasonably concluding that her testimony supported Clyde Fisher’s testimony that Bennett orchestrated and implemented the plan to permit Clyde Fisher to draw DIB and still draw wages from Labadie by substituting his wife as the apparent wage earner.13