Court Opinion

ID: 9470019
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 02:55:16.480286+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:41:41.295604
License: Public Domain

GARWOOD, Circuit Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I concur in all of the excellent majority opinion relating to the claims of appellant Nichols, and with almost all of it that concerns appellant Ford. However, I respectfully dissent as to Ford’s conviction on count 7.1 In my opinion the evidence does not show a sufficient nexus between the mailing charged in that count and the fraudulent scheme to establish that any of the conspirators “knowingly cause[d]” the mailing “for the purpose of executing such scheme” as required by the mail fraud statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1341.
None of the mailings charged in the several counts were by any of the conspirators or any one on their behalf or at their direction.2 Each such mailing originated and terminated in Dallas County.
*95The fake falling ceiling fan accident in which co-conspirator Davis feigned injury was staged at Banana’s Cafe in Dallas on May 24,1978. The incident was reported to the cafe owner who in turn reported it to the Dallas insurance agency through which Banana’s had acquired its liability insurance. The agency reported it to the Dallas office of the liability insurer, which turned the investigation over to a Dallas independent adjuster. Contact was made between the adjuster and Fisher, a Dallas attorney and co-conspirator who was representing the supposedly injured Davis in his claim. Fisher furnished the adjuster a variety of “information,” including statements from Davis and co-conspirator Keenan, a copy of Davis’s income tax return, and Davis’s medical bills from the emergency room and from co-conspirator Nichols. The adjuster sent this material to the insurance company’s Dallas office in August 1978. In May 1979 Fisher filed suit in Dallas on behalf of Davis against Banana’s. The citation in the suit found its way to the Dallas office of Banana’s liability insurer. When Dallas attorney Fowler, who frequently represented that company on such matters, happened to be present in this office for another purpose, he was retained to represent the company and its insured in Davis’s suit and was handed the papers. The record indicates that thereafter there was rather frequent telephone contact between Fisher and Fowler. There is no showing that the case was ever set for trial. In the afternoon of Friday, October 26,1979, Davis’ oral deposition was taken at Fowler’s office. There is no indication of who arranged for, suggested or requested the deposition, but it recites that it was taken pursuant to agreement. At the deposition Fowler requested of Fisher, who was present representing Davis, copies of witness statements, income tax returns and medical bills (most, if not all, of which Fisher had previously furnished the adjuster who in turn had furnished them to the insurance company). Fisher thereupon agreed to furnish these. There is no indication that Fowler did in fact expect, or would likely have expected, to receive the requested documents on or before October 29. Whether, and if so when, Fisher ever furnished Fowler any of this material is not disclosed by the record. On Monday, October 29,1979 Fowler wrote Fisher reminding him of his agreement to furnish the documents. The mailing of this October 29 letter is the basis of count 7.
In my opinion, this letter was at most “incidental and collateral to the scheme,” Kann v. United States, 323 U.S. 88 at 95, 65 S.Ct. 148 at 151, 89 L.Ed. 88 (1944); United States v. Kent, 608 F.2d 542, 546 n. 6 (5th Cir.1979), cert. denied, 446 U.S. 936, 100 S.Ct. 2153, 64 L.Ed.2d 788 (1980), and was not “for the purpose of executing” it as required by § 1341. There is nothing to suggest that whether Fowler reminded Fisher to furnish the documents was in the least material to the execution of the scheme. See United States v. Maze, 414 U.S. 395 at 401,402, 94 S.Ct. 645 at 649, 650, 38 L.Ed.2d 603 (1974). There is no evidence indicating that either the completion of the scheme or the prevention of its detection depended to any extent on, or would be in any way affected by, the mailing of this letter or the transmission of the message it contained. See United States v. LaFerriere, 546 F.2d 182 at 187 (5th Cir.1977). See also United States v. Georgalis, 631 F.2d 1199 at 1205 (5th Cir.1980).
Moreover, in my opinion there is no evidence that any of the conspirators “knowingly cause[d]” this mailing as § 1341 requires in instances such as these. It cannot simply be assumed that when at the Friday afternoon deposition Fisher agreed to Fowler’s request that he be furnished certain documents, Fisher (or any other conspirator) expected or should have expected Fowler to mail him a reminder letter if Fowler had not received the papers on Monday. If we might assume that the jurors knew what is common knowledge in the legal profession, we could say that such confirmatory or reminder letters are sent on many occasions, and on many other occasions are not, often depending on the cus*96tom in the locality or the practice followed by a particular lawyer, or on other factors, such as whether the requested material is supplied within a reasonable time. No particular actions of any of the conspirators can be fairly characterized as being such as would probably lead to this mailing. In this respect the case is entirely different from that in which a local bank’s mailing of a check drawn on an out of state bank is the foreseeable probable result of presenting the check to the local bank, Pereira v. United States, 347 U.S. 1, 74 S.Ct. 358, 98 L.Ed. 435 (1954), or in which a local insurance company representative’s mailing of a claim to the company’s out of state home office for payment in accordance with established procedures is the foreseeable probable result of submitting the claim to the local office, United States v. Kenofskey, 243 U.S. 440, 37 S.Ct. 438, 61 L.Ed. 836 (1917), or in which a merchant’s mailing of a credit card charge to an out of state bank is the foreseeable probable result of making purchases from the merchant by using a credit card issued by the bank. United States v. Maze, 414 U.S. 395, 399, 94 S.Ct. 645, 647, 38 L.Ed.2d 603 (1974). Nor is this a situation in which the mailing is a solicited response. Cf., e.g., United States v. Saxton, 691 F.2d 712 (5th Cir.1982) (mailings of applications for credit cards and of credit cards issued in response to applications); United States v. Toney, 598 F.2d 1349, 1354-55 (5th Cir.1979) (co-conspirator “Rice caused Carver [victim Clubb’s attorney] to mail the count letters by repeatedly inviting Clubb or Carver to continue communicating with him” as a “delaying tactic” or a means of “lulling” the victim).
That the mails are used in the course of a scheme or artifice to defraud does not suffice to make out a violation of § 1341. The terms of § 1341 require the presence of two additional elements: that a participant in the scheme, or one acting on his behalf, either mail, or take from the mail, or “knowingly cause[]” the mailing of, some “matter or thing”; and, that such is done “for the purpose of executing such scheme or artifice or attempting to do so.” We have no more warrant to narrowly construe these requirements than we do to read them out of the act. The settled rule that criminal statutes are to be construed strictly in favor of the accused, United States v. Bass, 404 U.S. 336, 350, 92 S.Ct. 515, 523, 30 L.Ed.2d 488 (1971), Rewis v. United States, 401 U.S. 808, 812, 91 S.Ct. 1056, 1059, 28 L.Ed.2d 493 (1971), plainly applies to § 1341. Fasulo v. United States, 272 U.S. 620, 629, 47 S.Ct. 200, 202, 71 L.Ed. 443 (1926); United States v. Edwards, 458 F.2d 875, 880 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 891, 93 S.Ct. 118, 34 L.Ed.2d 148 (1972). Because in my opinion the referenced elements of § 1341 were not proved respecting count 7, I would reverse Ford’s conviction on that count.

. Ford and Nichols were each convicted of fourteen separate mailings (counts 1-14) in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1341, and of conspiracy to violate § 1341 (count 15). Ford was sentenced to consecutive five year terms on each of counts 1 through 8, for a total of 40 years, and to five year terms on each of counts 9 through 15, the terms on these seven latter counts to run concurrently with those on counts 1 through 8. Because of the concurrent feature of Ford’s sentence respecting counts 9 through 15, there is no occasion to consider the validity of any of those counts. Nichols’ sentence was concurrent on all counts, so any deficiency in proof regarding count 7 or any of counts 9 through 15 would not require reversal in Nichols’ case.

. I refer to the conspirators generally, instead of simply to appellant Ford, as this Court has long held that each knowing co-participant in a scheme to defraud is chargeable under § 1341 with the acts of every other co-participant in mailing any item, or in knowingly causing such a mailing to be made, pursuant to and for the purpose of executing or attempting to execute such scheme. See United States v. Toney, 598 F.2d 1349 at 1355 (5th Cir.1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1033, 100 S.Ct. 706, 62 L.Ed.2d 670 (1980). Cf. United States v. Cohen, 145 F.2d 82 at 90, 91 (2d Cir. 1944), cert. denied, 323 U.S. 799, 65 S.Ct. 553, 89 L.Ed. 637 (1945) (agreement necessary to establish guilt of the substantive § 1341 offense on the “co-participant” theory differs from that necessary to establish conspiracy to violate § 1341, in that the latter requires that the agreement contemplate use of the mails, while the former requires agreement on only the fraudulent scheme and that any one of the participants, pursuant thereto, in fact mails something, or knowingly causes it to be mailed, for the purpose of executing the *95scheme, regardless of whether the agreement contemplated that the mails would be used).