Court Opinion

ID: 9466866
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 01:31:08.362427+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:40:01.283550
License: Public Domain

PORT, District Judge,
concurring.
I concur in all respects with the well reasoned Opinion of Judge Duniway and its analysis of the facts with one exception. I do not think the evidence supports the inference that, “Quiliei was in the ‘scam’ with Federbush from the beginning as an active participant.” Supra at 253. In spite of the easily met standard of this circuit, I fail to find sufficient independent non-hearsay evidence connecting Quiliei to the fraudulent scheme at the time of the issuance of the Los Angeles checks to make Federbush’s statements and conduct (“other acts”) admissible against Quiliei. See United States v. Santiago, 582 F.2d 1128 (7th Cir. 1978); United States v. Wood, 550 F.2d 435 (9th Cir. 1976).
However, the later refusal to strike was not error. Quilici’s subsequent conduct in writing personal checks against a non-existent account in the Windward Bank and the tell-tale contents of his briefcase clearly connect him with the fraudulent scheme. When Quiliei “joined and actively participated in [the scheme], he adopted the previous acts and declarations of his fellow [schemers]. United States v. Bucur (7 Cir., 1952), 194 F.2d 297, 302. These acts became admissible against him, at least as they tended to show the nature and objectives of *256the [scheme] he joined.” United States v. Santos, 385 F.2d 43, 45-46. (7th Cir. 1967), cert. denied 390 U.S. 954, 88 S.Ct. 1048, 19 L.Ed.2d 1148.
I concur in affirming the convictions as to both Federbush and Quilici.