Court Opinion

ID: 9463494
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 23:08:59.202505+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:38:09.143706
License: Public Domain

WEBSTER, Circuit Judge,
concurring.
I entertain some doubt whether an outsider to a scheme to defraud may be held accountable as a principal simply because he made statements in reckless disregard of the truth or falsity thereof. For that reason, I hesitate to place reliance on the line of cases cited in the majority opinion, originating with Spurr v. United States, 174 U.S. 728, 19 S.Ct. 812, 43 L.Ed. 1150 (1899). I nonetheless would affirm for the other reasons stated in the majority opinion.
A scheme to defraud by others was conceded by stipulation at trial. In order for appellant to be guilty, the government had the burden of proving beyond reasonable doubt that he in some way associated himself with the scheme to defraud and in some way sought by his actions to make it succeed. Nye & Nissen v. United States, 336 U.S. 613, 619, 69 S.Ct. 766, 93 L.Ed. 919 (1949); see Snyder v. United States, 448 F.2d 716, 718 (8th Cir. 1971). My reading of the full record convinces me that the District Court, taking the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, was justified in finding that appellant was aware *566of the essential aspects of the scheme and acted in furtherance of it by his telephonic assurances.