Court Opinion

ID: 9444750
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 21:10:48.64065+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:29:59.423071
License: Public Domain

LINDLEY, Circuit Judge,
dissenting.
I regret that I cannot accede to the decision of my brethren. I have read all of an extended record. It reflects duplicity on the part of defendant'Browne and the witness Maxwell Riffkind, which, for brazen effrontery and depravity and for daring repeated frauds I have seldom seen equalled. I shall not attempt to epitomize the’ evidence but to me it conclusively ties Browne in with a scheme to defraud continuing over a period of years. Time after time, Riff-kind testified, Browne conceived and engineered the barefaced attempts (usually successful), to defraud insurance and casualty companies and airlines. Indeed, in one instance, according to this witness, Browne suggested to Riffkind, after damage to the latter’s truck, that he proceed at once to obtain a policy of insurance which would cover the damages, already incurred. The advice was followed and the fraud consummated. Other equally flagrant instances are far from rare. It seems to me that no one can read this sordid story of a faithless lawyer and escape the conviction of his guilty participation in fraudulent machinations having as their sole purpose the obtaining of money by false pretensions. Being an active participant in this evil undertaking, Browne cannot escape the acts and statements of his co-conspirator in promotion of the conspiracy during its actual existence.
I am convinced likewise that whether there was use of the mails in promotion of this undertaking as charged in the indictment was a question for the jury. The office manager testified as to the receipt of the letters charged in Count II and explained in detail how incoming mail was handled. As to Count VI the person in charge explained in detail the receipt of the mail. All parties lived in Chicago. All transactions occurred there. Ample testimony as to the use of the mails appeared in the record. I think the evidence as to mailing within the district was of such character as to justify the jury’s verdict of guilty of use of the mails in furtherance of the fraudulent scheme.
I think also that the evidence as to the other counts, viewed in its light most favorable to the Government, required submission to the jury. At any rate the ■ sentence was justified by a verdict of guilty upon any one count. Other points argued by defendant were not raised below. I would affirm the conviction.