Opinion ID: 625938
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Counts 9 & 10 – Criminal Contempt

Text: Counts 9 and 10 charged the defendants with violating 18 U.S.C. § 3148(c).16 That section provides, “[t]he judicial officer may commence a prosecution for contempt . . . if the person has violated a condition of release.” The condition of release implicated in Counts 9 and 10 was the requirement that Miller “not commit any offense in violation of federal, state or local law while on release” from custody in connection with the Miller I prosecution. In Count 9, the government alleged the defendants violated the law by 15 A different conclusion would perhaps be required had First Tennessee already loaned First Horizon the funds used for Ms. Jordan’s loan prior to their disbursement, for in that case First Tennessee could possibly be said to no longer own or control those funds. See, e.g., United States v. Bennett, 621 F.3d 1131, 1136-47 (9th Cir. 2010) (rejecting argument that FDIC-insured parent bank “owned” funds of wholly-owned subsidiary and reversing bank fraud conviction for insufficiency of evidence). But see United States v. Walsh, 75 F.3d 1, 9 (1st Cir. 1996) (upholding bank fraud conviction where directly defrauded entity was not a “financial institution,” but was a wholly-owned subsidiary of one, and where parent bank provided subsidiary’s operating capital and exercised control over subsidiary’s lending decisions). 16 The Second Superseding Indictment and Judgments in this case mistakenly state that Counts 9 and 10 were premised upon a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1348(c). There is no such subsection. It is clear from the jury instructions and the context of the case that Counts 9 and 10 are in fact premised upon 18 U.S.C. § 3148(c). -32- engaging in the federal offense of bank fraud charged in Count 3. Likewise, in Count 10, the government alleged the defendants violated the law by engaging in the federal offense of money laundering charged in Count 5. Both Miller and Irvin were found guilty of Counts 9 and 10, and both challenge the sufficiency of the evidence underlying their convictions. Miller first contends his conviction on Count 9 must fail because it was specifically linked to the crime charged in Count 3. Because the jury acquitted him of the bank fraud charged in Count 3, he reasons, the government failed to prove a necessary element for conviction on Count 9. As discussed in the context of Miller’s challenge to Count 5, however, “consistency in verdicts is not required,” and an inconsistent verdict provides no reason for setting a conviction aside. Powell, 469 U.S. at 64-66. His conviction on Count 9 is affirmed. Miller also contends his conviction on Count 10 must fall because it was specifically linked to the crime charged in Count 5, which he believes was unsupported by sufficient evidence for the reasons discussed in Section III(B)(4), supra. That argument is, as demonstrated by the above analysis, flawed. Miller’s conviction on Count 5 was supported by adequate evidence, and Miller’s conviction on Count 10 is therefore affirmed. Irvin contends nothing in the record indicates she was even aware of Miller’s conditions of release from Miller I, and that without proof of such knowledge the jury could not rationally have found that she knowingly aided and abetted Miller’s violation of -33- those conditions. See United States v. Green, 175 F.3d 822, 832 (10th Cir. 1999) (“The essence of aiding and abetting liability is proof the defendant willfully associated with a criminal venture and sought through some affirmative action to make that venture succeed.” (quotation omitted)). The government offers no direct evidence in contradiction of Irvin’s position. It instead argues the record contains circumstantial evidence that, when viewed in the light most favorable to the government and combined with all permissible inferences, supports the jury’s conclusion Irvin was aware of Miller’s conditions of release. Sparks’s testimony he found out about Miller’s conditions of release from Vanatta, for example, is cited by the government as sufficient evidence to support a rational person’s conclusion that Vanatta also informed Irvin of the conditions. Other evidence indicated business monitor Steve Browne had been to Miller’s office to examine certain records, and had also looked into the Lake Ozark Transaction, in which Irvin had played a role. The government urges us to conclude this, too, supports the jury’s conclusion that Irvin was aware Miller was subject to a condition of release that forbade him violating federal law. This evidence, without more, is insufficient to support the jury’s conclusion that Irvin knew of Miller’s conditions of release. “While the jury may draw reasonable inferences from direct or circumstantial evidence, an inference must be more than speculation and conjecture to be reasonable, and caution must be taken that the conviction not be obtained by piling inference on inference.” United States v. Jones, 44 F.3d 860, 865 (10th Cir. 1995) (quotations omitted). Both routes to proving Irvin’s knowledge -34- proposed by the government go beyond the realm of “reasonable inferences” and into impermissible speculation. The conclusion that “if Vanatta told Sparks, he must have told Irvin” rests on no logical basis whatsoever. Similarly, although Browne’s presence in the office and review of the Lake Ozark Transaction might have been noticed by Irvin,17 there is no logical basis to infer she was also made aware of the reasons for his activities. Furthermore, because there is no evidentiary basis for concluding that Irvin was aware of Miller’s conditions of release, Irvin’s convictions for Counts 9 and 10 cannot be supported on the alternative basis of co-conspirator liability. The doctrine of co-conspirator liability operates to hold a defendant responsible for the crimes of his coconspirators, if those crimes are committed to help advance the conspiracy and are within the reasonably foreseeable scope of the conspiracy. Pinkerton v. United States, 328 U.S. 640, 646-48 (1946). Here, because there is no basis to conclude Irvin was even aware of Miller’s conditions of release, she could not reasonably have foreseen that Miller would violate them, or that their violation was necessary to advance the conspiracy to which she had agreed. Irvin’s convictions for Counts 9 and 10 are not supported by sufficient evidence and are reversed.