Opinion ID: 411878
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: sufficiency of the evidence

Text: 37 Both Lloyd and Means argue that the district court erred in denying the Motion for a New Trial and for Judgment of Acquittal. 38 According to both defendants the government failed to prove the necessary elements to substantiate its case. Under United States v. Goss, 650 F.2d 1336, 1341 (5th Cir.1981), and United States v. Zicree, 605 F.2d 1381 (5th Cir.1979), cert. denied, 445 U.S. 966, 100 S.Ct. 1656, 64 L.Ed.2d 242 (1980), the necessary elements of proof in mail and interstate communication fraud cases are that a scheme to defraud existed and that the mail or interstate communication, such as wire or telephone, was used for the purpose of executing the scheme. 39 The defendants argue that the government failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a scheme to defraud existed between Lloyd and Means. They assert this argument with regard to both FMBC and SRB. Both defendants point out that the principal evidence presented as to SRB came from the SRB attorney, whom they characterize as an admitted perjurer. 5 40 We find that, despite the strenuous arguments as to the circumstantial nature of the government's case, and despite the doubts cast on the veracity of the SRB attorney, ample evidence existed upon which the jury could base its verdict. Circumstantial evidence of sufficient weight can support a jury's inference of a scheme such as this. United States v. Goss, 650 F.2d at 1343. And even were we to discount the SRB attorney's testimony, a multitude of other witnesses presented damning evidence of an influence-for-pay scheme. The inferences drawn by the jury from the facts were supported by substantial evidence. 41 Testimony and exhibits introduced at trial supported the following crucial determinations: 42 Lloyd told the SRB attorney that for $50,000 payable in 2 years, he could get the charter approved. The SRB attorney agreed to the deal and the application was approved within 2 weeks; 43 Lloyd told the FMBC president that for $25,000, he could get the branch application approved. On or about the day the $25,000 intended for Lloyd disappeared at the Jackson Sheraton, Means approved the FMBC branch; 44 The day after Lloyd paid Means $4,200 out of the $10,000 received from SRB, Means approved the SRB branch application; 45 The day after the SRB attorney paid off the remaining $40,000 to Lloyd, Lloyd and Means divied up the check in a method designed to launder the money. 46 As the government attorney stated in oral argument before the court, the splitting up of the cashier's check by Means and Lloyd, which they admit, constitutes the linchpin of the government's case. Without this smoking gun the evidence might well have fallen short of meeting the required burden. Means himself stated that, but for the ill-fated walk across Hamilton Street, late on a Friday December afternoon, he could not have been connected with the disbursement of the check. Means and Lloyd contend that this was another loan. Means testified that it was part of an $18,000 loan to pay off pressing obligations. The evidence produced to substantiate this contention failed to persuade the jury. 47 Means earnestly argues that the timing of all these damning simultaneous occurrences is mere coincidence and that he has been convicted for doing no more than performing his official duties. The jury was unpersuaded that mere chance was involved in the coincidence between the apparent quids and quos. Means's attorney presented a well-prepared case with elaborate documentation regarding the timing of the permits and the charter. The jury could have believed that version of the events. They chose not to. 48 To repeat, under Glasser we find that the trial court did not err in denying the defendants' motions. Sufficient evidence was presented to support an inference by the jury of a scheme by Lloyd and Means to swap their influence for money.