Court Opinion

ID: 9490985
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 14:00:44.417971+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:54:26.823599
License: Public Domain

WIDENER, Circuit Judge,
concurring and dissenting:
I.
The defendants argue that they are entitled to a new trial on the conspiracy count (Count I) and wire fraud count (Count V) of the indictment.
While I concur in Parts II, III and IV of the opinion of the majority, and in the result obtained in Part VI thereof, as to Part V of the opinion I respectfully dissent. I would grant a new trial on the conspiracy and wire fraud counts.
Part V of the opinion mentions the questioned exhibit, MF-4, which lists two major categories of loan activity and the “total loss resulting [to Health Line] from Defendants’ criminal actions at $3,668,550.” Maj. p. 229. Of the said sum of $3,668,550, post-default interest of $740,335 and collections from doctors of $1,917,698 were not supported by underlying evidence. This is acknowledged. Thus, the amount of the loss was overstated by the government by $2,658,033, or 72%, hardly an error of little consequence. Despite that, we hold such an error to be “harmless,” maj. p. 229, and the defendants were “not prejudiced,” maj. p. 229, stating that the “figure only served to minimize HLI’s loss.” Maj. pp. 229-30.
In my opinion, errors of such magnitude are not harmless and should not be belittled as not prejudicial. Far from merely serving to minimize HLI’s loss, the figures show that the government overstated by 72% the fig*231ures underlying the key part of the trial which might well have, and probably did, affect the verdict.
Exhibit MF-4 was the centerpiece of the prosecution of this case; its gross inaccuracy should require a new trial.
II.
I have concurred in Part VI of the opinion only because the check in the amount of $410,425.56 was delivered to Med Pay a creditor which was owned by the defendants.
Under California Commercial Code § 9306, the lien of the bank remained attached to the check, so the only risk of loss was the solvency of the transferee of the cheek.
Except in the very unusual circumstances of this case, I think the evidence would have probably been insufficient to support the verr diet because, other than the self-dealing, there was no apparent risk of loss, the loan having been timely paid pursuant to an extension granted by the bank.
III.
I express no opinion on Part VII of the panel opinion. I think that such large parts of the convictions should be set aside that the defendants should be resentenced on all counts following a new trial.