Opinion ID: 699206
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Bank Fraud Conspiracy.

Text: 27 The district court concluded that the crimes alleged in count one of the indictment were not the crimes that the government proved at trial: By no stretch of the imagination could anyone be confident that the grand jury was aware of the theory the Government pursued at trial, or that--if it had been--it intended to indict on that theory. 856 F.Supp. at 846. This ruling is strictly one of law and, as such, is reviewed de novo. See United States v. Robison, 904 F.2d 365, 368 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 946, 111 S.Ct. 360, 112 L.Ed.2d 323 (1990). 28 The Fifth Amendment mandates that [n]o person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury.... A substantial deviation of [jury] instructions from an indictment is impermissible because first it requires a defendant to answer a criminal charge that was not brought by a grand jury, ... and second it denies the defendant sufficient notice to prepare and present an adequate defense. United States v. Lemire, 720 F.2d 1327, 1344 (D.C.Cir.1983) (citations omitted), cert. denied, 467 U.S. 1226, 104 S.Ct. 2678, 81 L.Ed.2d 874 (1984). 29 On appeal, the government argues that, although the jury charge on which the defendant was convicted differed from the wording of the indictment, the difference amounts to a permissible narrowing of the indictment rather than an impermissible deviation. Count one of the indictment charged defendants with execut[ing] and attempt[ing] to execute a scheme and artifice to defraud a financial institution, to wit, Citibank ... in that the defendants would and did deposit illegitimate checks ... and wrongfully receive payment on the checks. The government concedes that it offered no proof that the defendants would and did deposit illegitimate checks, but contends that there was ample proof that the defendants did attempt to execute a scheme and artifice to defraud a financial institution, to wit, Citibank ... in that the defendants would and did ... wrongfully receive payment on the checks. 30 On appeal Wallace argues that the differences between allegation and proof amount to a constructive amendment or a prejudicial variance. 31 1. Constructive Amendment. Constructive amendment occurs when the terms of the indictment are in effect altered by the presentation of evidence and jury instructions which so modify essential elements of the offense charged that there is a substantial likelihood that the defendant may have been convicted of an offense other than that charged in the indictment. United States v. Mollica, 849 F.2d 723, 729 (2d Cir.1988) (citing Stirone v. United States, 361 U.S. 212, 219, 80 S.Ct. 270, 274, 4 L.Ed.2d 252 (1960)). In such cases, the amendment results in the defendant being convicted on a charge the grand jury never made against him. United States v. Morgenstern, 933 F.2d 1108, 1115 (2d Cir.1991) (citations and quotations omitted), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 1101, 112 S.Ct. 1188, 117 L.Ed.2d 430; see also United States v. Khan, 53 F.3d 507, 517 (2d Cir.1995). Such an amendment is per se prejudicial, as it directly violates the grand jury clause of the Fifth Amendment. Morgenstern, 933 F.2d at 1115; United States v. Delano, 55 F.3d 720, 729 (2d Cir.1995). 32 Not all modifications constitute constructive amendments, however: [W]here charges are 'constructively narrowed' or where a generally framed indictment encompasses the specific legal theory or evidence used at trial, no constructive amendment occurs. Morgenstern, 933 F.2d at 1115. That is because narrowing the scope of an indictment ... by redaction[ ] does not offend the notice and review functions served by a grand jury's issuance of an indictment. United States v. Smith, 918 F.2d 1032, 1036 (2d Cir.1990), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 1125, 111 S.Ct. 1086, 112 L.Ed.2d 1191 (1991). As long as the crime and the elements of the offense that sustain the conviction are fully and clearly set out in the indictment, the right to a grand jury is not normally violated by the fact that the indictment alleges more crimes or other means of committing the same crime. United States v. Miller, 471 U.S. 130, 136, 105 S.Ct. 1811, 1815, 85 L.Ed.2d 99 (1985). 33 Miller, a mail fraud case, illustrates a permissible narrowing of an indictment. The disputed count charged the use of the mails to commit various fraudulent acts in connection with a burglary at the defendant's place of business. Id. at 131, 105 S.Ct. at 1812-13. The indictment alleged that Miller had both consented to the burglary in advance and that he had lied to the insurer about the magnitude of the loss. Id. at 132, 105 S.Ct. at 1813. The proof presented at trial, however, concerned only the misrepresentation to the insurance company. Id. The jury was charged on the entire indictment and returned a guilty verdict. Id. at 133-34, 105 S.Ct. at 1813-14. The Supreme Court affirmed Miller's conviction (reversing the Fifth Circuit) on the ground that [t]he facts proved at trial clearly conformed to one of the theories of the offense contained within that indictment ... Id. at 134, 105 S.Ct. at 1814. 34 In Wallace's indictment, count one charged a conspiracy having two wrongful objectives: to deposit of the checks and to receive the proceeds of them. It is undisputed on appeal that the evidence presented at trial did not show that the defendants conspired to deposit illegitimate checks at Citibank. However, the evidence does establish that Wallace was shown the stamped Citibank receipt, which reflected the deposit of the stolen checks at that bank, and that he thereafter took steps to induce Capri to withdraw the proceeds of the stolen checks from Citibank so that the conspirators could divide the proceeds. The indictment can be parsed in a way that would cast Wallace's conduct in terms of the elements of bank fraud: it was an object of the conspiracy that the defendants and their co-conspirators 35 did ... attempt to execute a scheme and artifice to defraud a financial institution, to wit, Citibank, located at 107 Williams Street, New York, New York, in that the defendants would ... wrongfully receive payment on [illegitimate] checks, in violation of Section 1344 of title 18, United States Code. 36 Although Citibank was not targeted by the conspirators in their original plan, Wallace was shown the deposit slip bearing the Citibank stamp. Cf. United States v. Knecht, 55 F.3d 54, 55-57 (2d Cir.1995). Thereafter, when he pressured Capri to draw the funds shown on the deposit slip, he was conspiring in an attempt to wrongfully receive payment from Citibank. In short, the prosecution's case and the jury charge narrowed the indictment but did not constructively amend it. 37 2. Variance. Even where there is evidence to support an offense pleaded in the indictment, the error of variance may arise if the evidence actually presented by the government at trial impermissibly shifts the government's theory of proof. [A] variance occurs when the charging terms are unaltered, but the evidence offered at trial proves facts materially different from those alleged in the indictment. United States v. Helmsley, 941 F.2d 71, 89 (2d Cir.1991), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 1091, 112 S.Ct. 1162, 117 L.Ed.2d 409 (1992). 38 To detect variance, we ask whether the defendant was given notice of the 'core of criminality' to be proven at trial. United States v. Heimann, 705 F.2d 662, 666 (2d Cir.1983), (citing United States v. Sindona, 636 F.2d 792, 797-98 (2d Cir.1980), cert. denied, 451 U.S. 912, 101 S.Ct. 1984, 68 L.Ed.2d 302 (1981)). Because [a] variance ... does not broaden the possible basis for conviction beyond that contained in the indictment, United States v. Patino, 962 F.2d 263, 266 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 113 S.Ct. 354, 121 L.Ed.2d 268 (1992), it will furnish the ground for overturning a verdict only if the defendant first shows that the variance result[ed] in substantial prejudice. United States v. McDermott, 918 F.2d 319, 326 (2d Cir.1990) (emphasis added), cert. denied, 500 U.S. 904, 111 S.Ct. 1681, 114 L.Ed.2d 76 (1991). Assuming, arguendo, that the proof presented at trial differed from the evidence augured in the indictment, Wallace has failed to demonstrate prejudice, because the indictment did not mislead Wallace as to the acts and events that were the subject of the trial. 39 The district court's judgment setting aside count one is vacated and the case is remanded for sentencing on this count. 40