Opinion ID: 405376
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Evidence of Good Faith

Text: 35 Having concluded that the evidence was sufficient to sustain Curry's conviction on mail fraud charges, we turn now to the question whether there was any evidence to support a good faith jury charge. As noted supra, good faith is a defense to charges of mail fraud. Hence, if Gordon Curry believed in good faith that the affidavits were correct, and were in compliance with Louisiana's Election Act, a jury could not reasonably conclude that the affidavits were intended to defraud the Supervisory Committee of true and correct campaign finance information. In addition, Curry's good faith belief that the affidavits were correct is relevant to the issue whether the affidavits were mailed by defendant in an effort to conceal his scheme to defraud P.E.O.P.L.E. Because good faith was an available defense, Curry was entitled to a good faith jury instruction if there was any evidence at all to support the charge, regardless of how weak, inconsistent or dubious the evidence of good faith may have been. U. S. v. Goss, 650 F.2d at 1345. 36 On this record, we cannot say there was no evidence to support a finding that Curry prepared the affidavits in a good faith belief that they were true and correct. 25 The most obvious evidence supporting a finding of good faith is the ambiguity of Louisiana's Election Act. The Act defines a contribution as a gift, loan, advance, or deposit of money ... made for the purpose of supporting, opposing or otherwise influencing the nomination or election of a person to public office. See Note 18, supra. The Act also requires that any contributions received by a political committee must be reported. However, a jury could well decide that Gordon Curry did not, in good faith, regard the money he solicited and received from political candidates as contributions. In ordinary parlance, a political contribution is understood as a donation, voluntarily given 26 by a citizen to a candidate, in order to assist in the candidate's election efforts. Ordinarily, one expects no more in return for his money than that the candidate of his choice is elected. 37 In this case, candidates testified that they transferred funds to P.E.O.P.L.E. in exchange for a definite set of services: P.E.O.P.L.E.'s endorsement, and its workers' campaigning efforts. As far as the candidates were concerned, they were simply expending funds for necessary services. 27 Accordingly, candidates listed amounts given to P.E.O.P.L.E. as expenditures on their campaign finance reports. Thus, the money was seen as no more a contribution to P.E.O.P.L.E. than a candidate's payment for posters would be a contribution to a printing shop. And in fact, candidates repeatedly testified that they had specifically refused to authorize P.E.O.P.L.E. members to solicit contributions, meaning donations from citizens, on the candidates' behalf. 38 The Government's position is that funds given to P.E.O.P.L.E. were expenditures to the candidates and at the same time, contributions to P.E.O.P.L.E. This interpretation of the Election Act may well be legally correct. Gordon Curry, however, is not a lawyer. The issue is whether a nonlawyer might reasonably have believed that money received in exchange for services was not a contribution. In regard to this question, there is evidence that leaders of other political committees also thought that funds received from candidates in exchange for services did not have to be reported as contributions. 28 39 In sum, the record reveals sufficient circumstantial evidence to justify a good faith jury charge. The trial judge read to the jury the relevant portions of Louisiana's Election Act. He did not however, instruct the jury that even if the funds from candidates were contributions, the jury should still consider whether Gordon Curry believed in good faith that the affidavits were correct, in reaching their decision on the question whether the affidavits were mailed for the purpose of concealing Curry's scheme to defraud P.E.O.P.L.E. Nor did the trial judge instruct the jury that Curry's good faith belief in the veracity of the affidavits was a defense to charges that he intended to defraud the Supervisory Committee of true and correct campaign finance information. 29 Because there was evidence to support a good faith defense, it was reversible error to not include the instructions in the jury charge.