Opinion ID: 767352
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Identity of Bankrupt Corporation

Text: 42 At trial, the Thayers argued the money used to pay for the condominium belonged to ELOP, not MIS. The court's charge on these counts was interrupted by a question from a juror: 43 THE COURT: The elements are:.... 44 Two, the defendant fraudulently concealed the property described in the indictment from creditors in the bankruptcy proceedings. 45 The question here is, in the mind of the Government is,... why was MIS's assets being used to buy this condo?... 46 The Thayers' attorneys say no way. [The court reviewed several arguments, including the attorneys' claim] that the funds in the MIS bank account were really not MIS money, but were pooled money perhaps from ELOP or other activities of the Thayer corporations.... 47 . . . . . . 48 Yes? 49 JUROR: Just to be clear, only MIS is in bankruptcy? 50 THE COURT: Your recollection controls and you'll have the bankruptcy papers, but my recollection is that MIS went into bankruptcy first and then perhaps six months to nine months later ELOP went into bankruptcy. 51 Thayer maintains the court's reference to ELOP's bankruptcy suggested to the jury that it could convict if it concluded the Thayers were concealing ELOP's assets, although the indictment charged only concealment of MIS' assets. 52 As we have explained, [a] federal judge is permitted to summarize and comment upon the evidence.... The court's comments, however, may not confuse or mislead the jury, or become so one-sided as to assume an advocate's position. American Home Assurance Co. v. Sunshine Supermarket, Inc., 753 F.2d 321, 327 (3d Cir. 1985) (ellipsis in original), quoted in Hughes v. Consol-Pennsylvania Coal Co., 945 F.2d 594, 617 (3d Cir. 1991). In American Home Assurance, we held the District Court erred during the jury charge by stating that certain expert witnesses had been compensated for their testimony, when there was no such evidence in the record. See 753 F.2d at 326-27. In Hughes, the defendant was accused of fraudulently inducing the plaintiffs to sell land at below-market prices. The District Court told the jury that if the defendant claimed that plaintiffs' property could be condemned for a fixed price in the event that plaintiffs refused to sell, the defendant had lied. 945 F.2d at 617. We found no prejudicial error, because the court accurately summarized the evidence and informed the jury that it did not have to be influenced by the court's summary. Id.; see also Haines v. Powermatic Houdaille, Inc., 661 F.2d 94, 95 (8th Cir. 1981) (finding no prejudicial error where the trial judge misstated an important piece of evidence but repeatedly cautioned the jury that the court's statements were not evidence). 53 Here, the District Court accurately explained to the jury that the Thayers were charged with using MIS' funds to make payments on the Atlantic City condominium and summarized the Thayers' defense, that the money used belonged to ELOP. In response to a juror's question, the judge accurately described the bankruptcy status of both MIS and ELOP, while reminding the jurors that their recollection, and not the court's, controlled. We find nothing in the court's charge that would have created or contributed to the alleged confusion, much less anything that was sure to prejudice the jury's deliberations. Thayer did not request a curative instruction following the juror's question and the District Court was not obliged to issue one sua sponte. We see no plain error here. 54