Opinion ID: 797173
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Additional Issues Advanced by Ghilarducci

Text: 27 1. Any Claim that Ghilarducci's Sixth Amendment Right to an Impartial Jury Was Infringed Would Be Frivolous. 28 Ghilarducci believes that an argument could be made that his Sixth Amendment right to a trial by a panel of impartial jurors was compromised by the presence of Barbara Jarvis on the jury. During the course of trial, Jarvis voluntarily advised the court that some thirty years earlier she attended high school with the lead prosecutor in the case. After the jury returned its verdict, the court learned that several years before trial, Jarvis was casually acquainted with an Assistant United States Attorney, who was not involved in the case. Ghilarducci wishes to argue that these two facts were a basis for removing Jarvis for cause, and that their late discovery deprived him of a peremptory challenge. We review a decision to deny a motion for a new trial based on a claim of juror bias for an abuse of discretion, and will only reverse if there is a strong indication of prejudicial error. See United States v. Medina, 430 F.3d 869, 875 (7th Cir.2005). 29 In addressing this potential argument, we are guided by the Supreme Court's decision in McDonough Power Equipment, Inc. v. Greenwood, where the Court set forth the standard for determining when the responses of a potential juror during jury selection mandate a new trial. 464 U.S. 548, 556, 104 S.Ct. 845, 78 L.Ed.2d 663 (1984). Under that standard, to obtain a new trial, a party must first show `that a juror failed to answer honestly a material question on voir dire,' and, if successful, then must demonstrate that `a correct response would have provided a valid basis for a challenge for cause.' Medina, 430 F.3d at 875 (quoting Greenwood, 464 U.S. at 556, 104 S.Ct. 845); see United States v. Arocho, 305 F.3d 627, 633 (7th Cir.2002). 30 Ghilarducci's proposed argument would fail at square one, because he cannot show that Jarvis failed to answer honestly any material question posed during voir dire. Neither Jarvis's delayed mention of attending high school thirty years before trial with the government's lead counsel nor her failure to mention that she knew someone who worked in the U.S. Attorney's Office was dishonest. During jury selection, Jarvis was only asked to reveal whether any of her family members or close friends were employed by a law enforcement agency. As these attorneys were merely casual acquaintances with whom she was associated many years before trial, Jarvis honestly answered the questions. Additionally, that Jarvis voluntarily advised the court that the government's lead counsel may have been her high school classmate is further evidence of her honesty. Any argument on this point would therefore be frivolous. 31 2. Ghilarducci's Proposed Confrontation Clause Argument Is Frivolous. 32 Ghilarducci contends that he could argue that by allowing David Sova, a witness suffering from memory loss, to read into evidence his grand jury testimony, the district court violated Ghilarducci's Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses against him. Evidentiary rulings that might bear on a defendant's right to confront witnesses are subject to de novo review. See United States v. Ellis, 460 F.3d 920, 923 (7th Cir.2006). 33 The Confrontation Clause gives every accused the right to be confronted with the witnesses against him. U.S. Const. amend. VI. That right is realized by affording defendants an opportunity for effective cross-examination. Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 61, 124 S.Ct. 1354, 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004); United States v. Owens, 484 U.S. 554, 557, 108 S.Ct. 838, 98 L.Ed.2d 951 (1988). Importantly, the Confrontation Clause guarantees an opportunity for effective cross-examination, not cross-examination that is effective in whatever way, and to whatever extent, the defense might wish. Delaware v. Fensterer, 474 U.S. 15, 20, 106 S.Ct. 292, 88 L.Ed.2d 15 (1985). Ghilarducci therefore wishes to argue that Sova's lack of memory regarding his prior statement was so complete as to deprive Ghilarducci of a meaningful opportunity to cross-examine Sova regarding that statement. After considering the precedent, however, we doubt such is the case. 34 In Fensterer, the Court considered whether the Confrontation Clause was offended when an expert testified in support of the government's theory that a victim had been strangled using a cat leash. Id. at 16, 106 S.Ct. 292. The expert opined that the victim's hair on the leash had been forcibly removed, but could not recall the basis for his belief. Id. at 16-17, 106 S.Ct. 292. Reasoning that it does not follow that the right to cross-examine is denied by the State whenever the witness' lapse of memory impedes one method of discrediting him, id. at 19, 106 S.Ct. 292, the Court found no Confrontation Clause violation. The Court admonished that: 35 The Confrontation Clause includes no guarantee that every witness called by the prosecution will refrain from giving testimony that is marred by forgetfulness, confusion, or evasion. To the contrary, the Confrontation Clause is generally satisfied when the defense is given a full and fair opportunity to probe and expose these infirmities through cross-examination, thereby calling to the attention of the factfinder the reasons for giving scant weight to the witness' testimony. 36 Id. at 21-22, 106 S.Ct. 292; see also Owens, 484 U.S. at 564, 108 S.Ct. 838 ([T]he Confrontation Clause ... is [not] violated by admission of an identification statement of a witness who is unable, because of a memory loss, to testify concerning the basis for the identification.); United States v. DiCaro, 772 F.2d 1314, 1327-28 (7th Cir.1985) (finding that, on the facts, a witness's assertions of memory loss did not deprive the defendant of an effective cross-examination); Creekmore v. Dist. Ct. of the Eighth Judicial Dist. of Montana, 745 F.2d 1236, 1238 (9th Cir.1984); United States v. Riley, 657 F.2d 1377, 1386 (8th Cir.1981); United States v. Payne, 492 F.2d 449, 454 (4th Cir.1974). 37 The weight of authority suggests that there was no Confrontation Clause violation on these facts. Sova did not claim a total loss of memory regarding the events. Rather, he cooperated with defense counsel's questioning and succeeded in answering a great number of questions. Ghilarducci's counsel tested Sova's credibility, probing into the severity of Sova's grand mal seizure, whether he had been compensated for his trial or grand jury testimony, and the extensiveness of his contact with government attorneys or agents. By referencing documents that memorialized his interactions with Ghilarducci, Sova was also able to answer some questions on that topic. Therefore, we doubt that Ghilarducci's opportunity to cross-examine Sova fell below constitutional standards. 38 Ultimately, however, even if it was error to admit Sova's testimony, that error was harmless. See Murillo v. Frank, 402 F.3d 786, 791 (7th Cir.2005) (alleged violations of the Confrontation Clause are subject to harmless error analysis). In Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673, 106 S.Ct. 1431, 89 L.Ed.2d 674 (1986), the Court held that in assessing whether a Confrontation Clause violation was harmless, a court should consider the importance of the witness's testimony; whether the testimony is cumulative; the presence or absence of evidence corroborating or contradicting the testimony; the extent of cross-examination permitted; and the overall strength of the prosecution's case. Id. at 684, 106 S.Ct. 1431. 39 Each of these factors leads to a conclusion that any error in allowing Sova to read his statement was harmless. The prosecution gave Sova's testimony little importance, not even referencing it during closing argument. His testimony was largely cumulative and corroborated; it restated several points revealed in exhibits. As stated above, cross-examination was fairly extensive and was only occasionally hampered by Sova's memory lapses. 40 Most importantly, even without Sova's grand jury testimony, the prosecution had a strong case; the jury was presented ample evidence of the defendant's role in the railroad bond scheme. Faxes sent by Ghilarducci consistently reassuring clients that the railroad bonds were legitimate and that a payout was imminent were admitted into evidence without objection. The jury heard Ichelson testify that before investing over $1.3 million in the railroad bonds, Ghilarducci told him that the bond trading program had been operating for five years without a failure, and that Ghilarducci had buyers on hand ready to buy out any dissatisfied investor. WFA employee Brian McGuire testified that he told Ghilarducci in 1997 that the government had no interest in the railroad bonds and that the individual who appraised the bonds was being investigated by the SEC. According to McGuire, that information was never passed on to customers. In light of the evidence, if there was a Confrontation Clause problem (and we do not believe there was), it was harmless. For that reason, Ghilarducci could not proffer a nonfrivolous Confrontation Clause argument. 41 3. Ghilarducci's Simultaneous Indictments Do Not Implicate the Double Jeopardy Clause. 42 Ghilarducci believes a nonfrivolous argument could be made that he was held in double jeopardy by virtue of his simultaneous indictments for wire fraud in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois and for mail fraud in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. See U.S. Const. amend V (providing that no person shall . . . be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb). This argument would fail because mail and wire fraud are distinct crimes. Specifically, the Double Jeopardy Clause is not offended when a defendant is convicted under two provisions, so long as each provision requires proof of a fact which the other does not. Brown v. Ohio, 432 U.S. 161, 166, 97 S.Ct. 2221, 53 L.Ed.2d 187 (1977) (quoting Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299, 304, 52 S.Ct. 180, 76 L.Ed. 306 (1932)). Because wire and mail fraud require proof of at least one distinct fact (the existence of a mailing or wire transmission), Ghilarducci cannot advance a nonfrivolous argument under the Double Jeopardy Clause. 43 4. The District Court Did Not Abuse Its Discretion in Denying Ghilarducci's Second Motion to Extend the Time for Filing Post-Trial Motions. 44 As another potential appellate issue, Ghilarducci contends that the district court erred in denying his second request to extend the time for filing post-trial motions. We disagree. A court's denial of a motion for an extension is reviewed for abuse of discretion. See Gonzalez v. Ingersoll Milling Mach. Co., 133 F.3d 1025, 1030 (7th Cir.1998). At the time this case was before the district court, Rule 45 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure only allowed extensions of time to file Rule 29 motions for judgment of acquittal and Rule 33 motions for a new trial as determined by those rules. See Fed.R.Crim.P. 45(b)(2) (2004) (The court may not extend the time to take any action under Rules 29, 33, 34, and 35, except as stated in those rules.). 45 Rule 29 provided that [a] defendant may move for a judgment of acquittal, or renew such a motion, within 7 days after a guilty verdict or after the court discharges the jury, whichever is later, or within any other time the court sets during the 7-day period.  Fed.R.Crim.P. 29(c)(1) (2004) (emphasis added). Likewise, Rule 33 provided that motions for a new trial not based on newly discovered evidence must be filed within seven days of the verdict or finding of guilty, or within such further time as the court sets during the 7-day period.  Fed.R.Crim.P. 33(b)(2) (2004) (emphasis added). Under the plain language of the rules, the district court had no authority to grant an extension of time to file a post-trial motion for judgment of acquittal or new trial more than seven days after the verdict or jury discharge. 46 Here, the jury issued its verdict on December 15, 2004 and was discharged on December 17, 2004. Therefore, motions to extend had to be filed and granted within seven days of December 17, excluding weekends and holidays. The only request for extension made before that date (December 29, 2004) occurred on December 16, 2004. The court granted that motion, setting the outer limits for filing any post-trial motions at January 31, 2005. Ghilarducci did not file his post-trial motion during that time period. Instead, on January 28, 2005, he requested a further extension of the deadline to file post-trial motions. The court did not abuse its discretion in denying that untimely request. See Fed. R.Crim.P. 45, 29, 33; see also United States v. Canova, 412 F.3d 331, 345 (2d Cir.2005); United States v. Hocking, 841 F.2d 735, 737 (7th Cir.1988). 1 Any argument on this point would be frivolous. 47 5. The District Court Did not Err in Admitting Testimony Regarding Ghilarducci's Negotiations with the Illinois Attorney General's Office. 48 Ghilarducci would also take issue with the district court's decision to allow testimony regarding a proposed settlement between Ghilarducci and the Illinois Attorney General's office. Contrary to Ghilarducci's suggestion, in allowing the testimony, the district court did not violate Federal Rule of Evidence 408, because the Seventh Circuit has long held that Rule 408 only applies in civil cases. See, e.g., United States v. Prewitt, 34 F.3d 436, 439 (7th Cir.1994). 49 6. Ghilarducci's Argument for Overturning His Money Laundering Conviction Is Frivolous. 50 Finally, Ghilarducci seeks to argue that his money laundering convictions must be reversed because the government failed to prove that he attempted to conceal the proceeds of any criminal activity. Ghilarducci's contention would fail simply because he relies upon the wrong money laundering provision. He was charged with money laundering under 18 U.S.C. § 1957, not 18 U.S.C. § 1956, as he contends. A defendant is guilty of money laundering under Section 1957 if while in the United States, the defendant knowingly engages in a monetary transaction in criminally derived property that has a value in excess of $10,000 and that is derived from specified unlawful activity. There is simply no concealment requirement under 18 U.S.C. § 1957. Accordingly, this argument would fail.