Opinion ID: 3001508
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Sufficiency of indictment’s mail fraud counts

Text: Sorich and McCarthy contend that the district court abused its discretion by refusing to dismiss a portion of the indictment that the government amended by superseding indictment thirteen days prior to trial. The government contends that after reviewing its trial proof, it decided to substitute one mailing for another on count two in order to strengthen its case and to avoid having to rely on a witness with shaky credibility. The defendants can neither show that this minor change prejudiced them in any concrete way—by demonstrating, for example, that their attorney was unable to prepare in time—nor rebut the government’s explanation that it simply wished to tighten its case. They have failed to make out a due process claim on this point. See United States v. McMutuary, 217 F.3d 477, 481-82 (7th Cir. 2000). McCarthy argues that count five—which charged mail fraud in the hiring of two unqualified union officials’ sons as building inspectors—was inconsistent with the remainder of the indictment. The indictment charged a scheme of false hiring exclusively for political campaign work, he argues, whereas in this count, hiring was based on nepotism. But as in United States v. Stout, 965 F.2d 340, 344 (7th Cir. 1992), McCarthy’s “interpretation of the indictment is too narrow.” In the very first paragraph of the indictment’s “overview of the scheme” section, this text appears: “In addition, in some cases Sorich and others rewarded other favored persons and groups with City jobs and promotions.” Fairly read, the scheme set out in the indictment is fraudulent hiring of cronies—usually political cronies, but not always—and count five fits in this scheme. 24 Nos. 06-4251, 06-4252, 06-4253 & 06-4254