Opinion ID: 3015470
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Lauderdale

Text: At trial, Fafalios testified that he paid Lauderdale for legitimate work, such as installing alarms at Fafalios’s home. Lauderdale argues that because some of these payments were legitimate, and because Fafalios could not identify which of the payments to Lauderdale were illegal payoffs and which were not, the Government’s evidence was insufficient to support a conviction. Lauderdale’s argument, however, does not account for significant documentary evidence introduced by the Government, namely checks that Fafalios made out to himself (and gave to Lauderdale to cash) that included the notations “H” or “H/H”—abbreviations for “Harry” or Lauderdale’s nickname, “Handsome Harry.” Of the ten checks the Government introduced against Lauderdale, five were dated after January 24, 1997. In particular, Government Exhibit 349-3 is a check dated May 30, 1997 in the amount of $1,000 made out to Fafalios with the notation “H/H”, and Government Exhibit 270 is a false invoice, also dated May 30, 1997, for approximately $3,000. Similarly, Government Exhibits 284 and 285 are three invoices signed by Lauderdale on January 14, 1998, totaling approximately $3,000. In turn, Government Exhibit 349-7 is a check made out to Fafalios with the notation “H” for $1,000. Thus the dates on the invoices correspond with the date of the check. Additionally, the $1,000 payoff is consistent with AAA’s practice of a giving a one-third kickback to the City employee. In light of this evidence, we reject 7 Lauderdale’s argument.