Opinion ID: 2799391
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Admission of “Wealth Evidence”

Text: Hope next argues that the district court plainly erred in allowing the government to introduce evidence of her wealth, luxury purchases, vacation expenses, and automobile leases. She asserts that the admission of such “wealth evidence” constituted plain error because the evidence was irrelevant to the issues before the jury and biased the jury against her. For instance, at trial, during its case in chief, the government elicited testimony from the case agent regarding a “rare elite type of corporate card” issued to HNS. He described various charges on the card, including numerous purchases of luxury items (with details of particular purchases and specific dollar amounts), stays at luxury resorts, and lease payments for “high-end” BMW automobiles. Another witness testified that she had reviewed HNS’s financial records, which showed payments on boat loans, jewelry, and the BMW automobiles. Then, after Hope testified in her defense that the billing process had been a bureaucratic 13 Case: 14-12462 Date Filed: 05/07/2015 Page: 14 of 25 nightmare, the prosecutor cross-examined Hope about numerous luxury purchases and whether these were part of her “nightmare.” Specifically, the prosecutor referred to luxury purchases from high-end designers such as Chanel, Gucci, and Louis Vuitton. The prosecutor cited this evidence in closing arguments. Whether evidence of wealth is properly admissible depends on the specific facts of the case. See United States v. Nill, 518 F.2d 793, 802 (5th Cir. 1975) (“A man’s wealth is wholly irrelevant to his guilt or innocence in a criminal prosecution unless the wealth is directly connected to the offense for which he is standing trial.”). On the one hand, “[u]se of a defendant’s wealth to appeal to class bias can be highly improper and can deprive that defendant of a fair trial.” United Bradley, 644 F.3d 1213, 1271 (11th Cir. 2011) (internal quotation marks omitted). But on the other, “evidence of wealth or extravagant spending may be admissible when relevant to issues in the case and where other evidence supports a finding of guilt.” Id. We have noted that it is often difficult to determine whether wealth evidence is “intended to appeal to class bias or to establish a fact in issue.” Id. Therefore, a court’s determination of whether wealth evidence is relevant under Rule 401, Fed. R. Evid., and whether the evidence’s probative value is substantially outweighed by its unfair prejudice under Rule 403, Fed. R. Evid., must turn on the specific facts of the case. Id.; see also United States v. Jackson-Randolph, 282 F.3d 369, 14 Case: 14-12462 Date Filed: 05/07/2015 Page: 15 of 25 378 (6th Cir. 2002) (delineating factors to analyze whether wealth evidence is unfairly prejudicial). Rule 403 is “an extraordinary remedy that should be used sparingly,” and in reviewing Rule 403 issues “we look at the evidence in the light most favorable to its admission, maximizing its probative value and minimizing its undue prejudicial impact.” United States v. Flanders, 752 F.3d 1317, 1335 (11th Cir. 2014) (quotation marks omitted), cert. denied, (U.S. Jan. 26, 2015) (No. 147642). Here, the admission of evidence regarding Hope’s wealth and luxury purchases was not erroneous because it was relevant to the issues in the case, and other evidence supports Hope’s guilt. See Bradley, 644 F.3d at 1271. Some of the evidence was relevant to establishing the fraudulent nature of specific claims. For example, evidence of Hope’s expenditures while on vacation showed that Medicaid was billed for services on dates when Hope was not at HNS. The wealth evidence was also relevant to rebutting Hope’s defenses to the charges. As part of her defense, Hope contended that she used the $4 million to put into her practice and to pay her employees, who, according to her attorney’s opening statement, “put that money in their bank account.” Evidence of Hope’s lavish personal spending during the period in which the offenses occurred supports the opposite inference—that the majority of the money was going directly to Hope for her personal benefit. Hope also argued that she did not knowingly commit 15 Case: 14-12462 Date Filed: 05/07/2015 Page: 16 of 25 fraud, but rather that the overpayments were the result of billing errors. The wealth evidence was relevant to this defense because it supports an inference that Hope did not honestly believe that she was receiving payments from Medicaid as a result of billing errors or other mistakes, and also that she was the person responsible for the scheme. The evidence also goes to Hope’s motive to commit the offenses. Hope argues that motive was irrelevant by pointing to the prosecutor’s statement to the jury that he did not “need to show you why somebody committed a crime.” However, the fact that motive is not an element of the offense requiring proof does not mean that it is irrelevant. As we have stated, “Evidence, not part of the crime charged but pertaining to the chain of events explaining the context, motive and set-up of the crime, is properly admitted if linked in time and circumstances with the charged crime, or forms an integral and natural part of an account of the crime, or is necessary to complete the story of the crime for the jury.” United States v. Williford, 764 F.2d 1493, 1499 (11th Cir. 1985); see also Fed. R. Evid. 404(b)(2) (noting that evidence of prior bad acts may be admissible for the purpose of proving motive). In sum, the evidence of Hope’s wealth and spending was relevant to facts at issue in Hope’s trial. See Bradley, 644 F.3d at 1271-72. In addition, a substantial amount of other credible evidence of the illegal activity was presented. See id. at 16 Case: 14-12462 Date Filed: 05/07/2015 Page: 17 of 25 1271. In view of these facts, we cannot say that the probative value of the wealth evidence was substantially outweighed by a danger of unfair prejudice. See Flanders, 752 F.3d at 1335. Therefore, the district court did not commit error, plain or otherwise, in admitting the evidence.