United States v. Russell, 1st Cir. (2013)

7/26/2019 United States v. Russell, 1st Cir. (2013)

1/37

United States Court of AppealsFor the First Circuit

No. 12- 1315

UNI TED STATES,

Appel l ee,

v.

RODNEY L. RUSSELL,

Def endant , Appel l ant .

APPEAL FROM THE UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURTFOR THE DI STRI CT OF MAI NE

[ Hon. J ohn A. Woodcock, J r . , U. S. Di st r i ct J udge]

Bef or e

Lynch, Chi ef J udge,Thompson and Kayat t a, Ci r cui t J udges.

Wi l l i am S. Maddox f or appel l ant .Mar gar et D. McGaughey, Assi st ant Uni t ed St at es At t or ney, wi t h

whomThomas E. Del ahant y I I , Uni t ed St at es At t orney, was on br i ef ,f or appel l ee.

August 26, 2013


2/37

THOMPSON, Circuit Judge. Appel l ant Rodney L. Russel l

appl i ed f or and recei ved gover nment subsi di zed heal t h car e cover age

f or sever al year s. Al t hough Russel l was wor ki ng under t he t abl e

dur i ng t hose year s, he cl ai med on hi s r enewal appl i cat i ons t hat he

had no i ncome t o r epor t . Af t er a gover nment i nvest i gat i on,

i ndi ct ment , and mul t i - day t r i al , a j ur y convi ct ed Russel l of maki ng

f al se st at ement s i n connect i on wi t h t he payment of heal t h car e

benef i t s, 18 U. S. C. 1035( a) ( 2) . On appeal , Russel l at t acks hi s

convi ct i on on mul t i pl e gr ounds. Af t er car ef ul consi der at i on, we

af f i r m.

BACKGROUND

A. Health Care Subsidy

We wal k t hr ough t he r el evant f act s i n t he l i ght most

f avor abl e t o t he ver di ct . Uni t ed St at es v. Mer cado, 412 F. 3d 243,

245 ( 1st Ci r . 2005) .

Shor t l y af t er l osi ng hi s j ob and accompanyi ng heal t h

i nsur ance i n 2006, Russel l appl i ed f or subsi di zed heal t h i nsur ance

cover age t hr ough t he Di r i go Heal t h Agency' s Di r i goChoi ce Heal t h

Pr ogr am( "Di r i go") . I n 2003, t he Mai ne l egi sl at ur e creat ed Di r i go

Heal t h Agency t o expand access t o heal t h i nsurance cover age f or

Mai ne ci t i zens who cannot ot her wi se af f or d i t . Di r i go negot i at es

compet i t i ve r at es and benef i t packages wi t h pr i vat e i nsur ance

car r i er s. Thr ough t he Di r i goChoi ce Pr ogr am( "Di r i go Choi ce") , t he

agency al so subsi di zes i nsurance pr emi ums f or Mai ne ci t i zens whose

-2-


3/37

i ncome l evel f al l s bel ow 300% of t he f eder al pover t y l evel . The

subsi dy must be r enewed ever y t wel ve mont hs.

To qual i f y f or t he subsi dy, appl i cant s must f i l l out t wo

appl i cat i ons: an i nsur ance appl i cat i on t o t he i nsur ance car r i er

and a subsi dy appl i cat i on t o Di r i go. The appl i cant cer t i f i es t he

subsi dy appl i cat i on and submi t s suppor t i ng document at i on, such as

i ncome t ax r etur ns and pr oof of i ncome. The pr i mary determi nant s

of subsi dy el i gi bi l i t y ar e i ncome and househol d si ze.

I n 2006, af t er l osi ng hi s j ob as a st ockbr oker and

f i nanci al advi sor at t he r et i r ement i nvest ment f i r m Commonweal t h

Fi nanci al Network d/ b/ a Br own Company, and hi s accompanyi ng heal t h

i nsur ance, Russel l appl i ed f or and r ecei ved subsi di zed heal t h

i nsur ance cover age t hr ough Di r i go Choi ce. Russel l ' s 2006

appl i cat i on i ncl uded i nf ormat i on about hi s empl oyment and i ncome,

as wel l as a pay st ub f r om t he Bur eau of Unempl oyment

Compensat i on. 1 I t al so i ncl uded a si gned cer t i f i cat i on st at ement

t hat r ead:

I n si gni ng t hi s st at ement , I cer t i f y t hat Imeet t he el i gi bi l i t y requi r ement s checkedabove. I f I ' m cover i ng my spouse/ domest i cpar t ner , I cer t i f y t hat he/ she al so meet si ndi vi dual el i gi bi l i t y r equi r ement s. I wi l lcont act t he Di r i go Heal t h Agency i f myci r cumst ances change. I underst and t hat

f ai l ur e t o do so may resul t i n l oss ofcover age f or me and my f ami l y members.

1Russel l r ecei ved unempl oyment benef i t s r oughl y betweenOct ober 2006 and Mar ch 2007.

-3-


4/37

The f ol l owi ng year , Russel l appl i ed t o r enew hi s subsi dy.

Wher e t he appl i cat i on asked about gr oss wages, t i ps and sal ar i es,

Russel l r esponded, "not avai l abl e. " Russel l al so i ndi cat ed "not

avai l abl e" when asked about hi s net sel f - empl oyment i ncome and

gr oss r ecei pt s mi nus al l owabl e busi ness expenses. He r epor t ed an

$8, 000 I RA wi t hdr awal , $575 mont hl y r ent , and $600 cash l ef t i n hi s

account whi ch he sai d he woul d be " t aki ng out soon. " Russel l

si gned a ver i f i cat i on cl ause on t he appl i cat i on whi ch r ead i n

per t i nent par t :

I under st and t he quest i ons on t hi s f or m. Al lst atement s and answers I have gi ven ar e t r ueand compl et e. The Di r i go Heal t h Agency . . .may check i nf or mat i on submi t t ed on thi s f or m. . . . I under st and i t ' s a cri me t o knowi ngl ypr ovi de f al se, i ncompl et e, or mi sl eadi ngi nf or mat i on on t hi s f or m and t hat I coul d bechar ged wi t h per j ur y.

Rel yi ng on t he i nf or mat i on i n Russel l ' s appl i cat i on, i n November

2007, Di r i go awarded hi man 80%subsi dy i n t he amount of $4, 100 f or

anot her f ul l year of coverage (December 1, 2007 t hrough November

2008) . 2

Russel l appl i ed t o renew hi s subsi dy a second t i me on

Oct ober 29, 2008. The 2008 r enewal appl i cat i on i ncl uded hi s 2007

t ax r et ur n and r epor t ed I RA di st r i but i ons of $9, 133. 33 and

unempl oyment benef i t s of $4, 160 f or a t ot al i ncome of $13, 293. 33.

Russel l r epr esent ed he had no gr oss wages, t i ps, or sal ar i es bef or e

2At t he t i me of Russel l ' s r enewal appl i cat i on, t he i ncome cutof f was $14, 700.

-4-


5/37

deduct i ons t o r epor t by respondi ng "zer o" on t he rel evant sect i on

of t he appl i cat i on. He al so si gned a si mi l ar cer t i f i cat i on t hat

accompani ed hi s 2007 r enewal appl i cat i on. Rel yi ng on t he

i nf or mat i on pr ovi ded i n t he 2008 r enewal appl i cat i on, Di r i go

awarded Russel l an 80% subsi dy i n t he amount of $7, 500. 3

A year l at er i n 2009, Russel l submi t t ed a thi r d r enewal

appl i cat i on. He r epr esent ed he had no gr oss wages, t i ps, sal ar i es,

or sel f - empl oyment i ncome by answer i ng "zero" on t he rel evant l i nes

i n t he appl i cat i on. He al so compl et ed t he same cer t i f i cat i on t hat

accompani ed hi s 2007 and 2008 r enewal appl i cat i ons. I n an Oct ober

29, 2009 emai l exchange wi t h Tar nya Br unel l e, an el i gi bi l i t y

speci al i st at Di r i go, Russel l conf i r med t hat he had "not r ecei ved

unempl oyment benef i t s or any ot her ki nd of i ncome si nce spr i ng

2007. " Based on Russel l ' s r epr esent at i ons i n hi s 2009 r enewal

appl i cat i on, Di r i go awar ded hi m an 80% subsi dy i n t he amount of

$4, 100.

For t hr ee year s - - 2007, 2008, and 2009 - - Russel l had

r ecei ved a subsi dy based on hi s r epr esent at i ons on each appl i cat i on

t hat he had no i ncome t o r epor t and that he was unempl oyed, but

nei t her t ur ned out t o be t r ue. He had i n f act been wor ki ng f or hi s

hi gh school f r i end, Mal col m French, al l al ong.

3At t he t i me of Russel l ' s 2008 r enewal appl i cat i on, t he i ncomecut of f f or t he subsi dy was $15, 600.

-5-


6/37

B. The Trial

A f eder al gr and j ur y i nvest i gat i on event ual l y l ed t o an

i ndi ct ment char gi ng Russel l wi t h si x count s of maki ng f al se

st at ement s i n r ecei vi ng heal t h car e benef i t s i n vi ol at i on of 18

U. S. C. 1035( a) ( 2) . Each count cor r esponds t o t he dat e of an

al l eged f al se st at ement : November 7, 2007, t he dat e of Russel l ' s

2007 r enewal appl i cat i on ( Count One) ; Oct ober 26, 2008, t he date of

hi s 2008 r enewal appl i cat i on ( Count Two) ; Oct ober 29, 2008, t he

dat e of t he si gned cert i f i cat i on t hat accompani ed t he 2008 r enewal

appl i cat i on ( Count Thr ee) ; Oct ober 23, 2009, t he dat e of t he 2009

r enewal appl i cat i on ( Count Four ) , and t he dat e of t he si gned

cer t i f i cat i on ( Count Fi ve) ; and Oct ober 29, 2009, t he t i me st amped

on the emai l exchange bet ween Russel l and Bur nel l f r om Di r i go

( Count Si x) . The case pr oceeded t o t r i al on Apr i l 25, 2011.

1. Employment with Malcolm French

At t r i al , t he gover nment pr esent ed evi dence t hat Russel l ,

af t er l osi ng hi s j ob at t he Br own Company i n 2006, st ar t ed wor ki ng

i n some capaci t y f or Fr ench. Fr ench owns sever al busi nesses

i ncl udi ng: Col d St r eam Cont r act i ng, a gr avel and const r uct i on

busi ness; 4 Mal col m French Pr of essi onal For est r y, whi ch cut s t r ees,

haul s wood, and per f or ms ot her f or est r y servi ces; Mal col m French

Loggi ng; and a gar age i n Enf i el d ( now i n LaGr ange) , Mai ne.

4Fr ench has empl oyees put gr ound cover over sal mon cul vert s onCol d St r eam Cont r act i ng pr oper t y.

-6-


7/37

The j ury hear d t est i mony f r omFr ench empl oyees t hat t hey

had seen Russel l wor ki ng i n French' s of f i ce. St even Benson J r . , a

French empl oyee, t est i f i ed he saw Russel l wor k i n French' s of f i ce

once or t wi ce ever y t wo or t hree weeks when Benson dropped of f

paperwork. When Benson dr opped of f paperwork, he woul d pass i t t o

Russel l i f Russel l was ther e. Accor di ng t o Benson, Russel l used

t he comput er i n t he of f i ce on at l east one occasi on and sever al

t i mes endorsed checks wi t h a r ubber st amp bear i ng French' s name. 5

I f Benson cal l ed l ooki ng f or Fr ench, Russel l somet i mes answer ed t he

phone. Anot her empl oyee of Fr ench, J ef f r ey Fogg, t est i f i ed t hat he

saw Russel l at t he comput er i n t he of f i ce and r ecal l ed gi vi ng

Russel l t i me car ds and r ecei pt s f r om di f f er ent pur chases.

I n addi t i on t o t he t est i mony of French' s empl oyees,

Russel l ' s ex- wi f e, J ul i e Pl ummer , t est i f i ed t hat Russel l wor e wor k

boot s, worked l ate, and compl ai ned about worki ng hard and doi ng

backbr eaki ng wor k. Rhonda Hender son, Russel l ' s cur r ent wi f e,

t est i f i ed t hat shor t l y af t er t hey met i n August 2007, Russel l

i nt r oduced her t o Mal col m French, and hi s wi f e, Bar bar a Fr ench.

Russel l cl ai med t hat he was wor ki ng f or hi msel f cut t i ng wood on

French' s l and. At one poi nt , Russel l , accor di ng t o Hender son, t ol d

her t hat he was hel pi ng Mal col m French i nst al l cul ver t s t o al l ow

sal mon t o swi m upst r eam on hi s ( French' s) pr oper t y as par t of t he

5Benson di d not see Russel l af t er French bui l t hi s new gar agei n LaGr ange, Mai ne i n 2009.

-7-


8/37

wor k done by an ent i t y cal l ed Ol d St r eamConservat i on Associ at es.

Bank recor ds showed t hat Russel l si gned checks on behal f of Ol d

St r eam Conservat i on Associ at es.

J er al d Davi s, an empl oyee of Gr i f f i n Gr eenhouse Suppl i es

i n Mai ne, whi ch sel l s gr eenhouse and nur sery suppl i es, r ecal l ed

speaki ng t o Russel l around a dozen t i mes bot h i n person and by

t el ephone about pur chasi ng suppl i es f or Col d St r eam Cont r act i ng.

Davi s r emembered Russel l i n part i cul ar because he al ways pai d f or

hi s pur chases, such as $9, 000- $11, 000 wor t h of soi l and mul t i pl e

bags of f er t i l i zer , usi ng cash pl aced i n Zi pl oc bags. Davi s

t est i f i ed t hat Russel l t ol d hi mhe needed t hese and ot her mat er i al s

f or t he sal mon cul ver t s. 6

2. Cash In

The gover nment i nt r oduced evi dence t hat Fr ench had been

payi ng Russel l i n cash and Russel l , i n t ur n, pai d hi s bi l l s i n

cash. Bank recor ds showed t hat bet ween J anuar y 2007 and 2009,

$30, 000 cash was deposi t ed i nt o Russel l ' s account , but t her e wer e

no checks f r omCol d St r eamCont r act i ng ( not t o be conf used wi t h Ol d

St r eam Conservat i on) ; t her e mi ght have been one check f r om Fr ench

Prof essi onal For est r y. One Fr ench empl oyee, who was al ways pr esent

when ot her Fr ench empl oyees pi cked up t hei r paychecks, t est i f i ed

t hat t he empl oyees r ecei ved t hei r paychecks i n envel opes bear i ng

6Davi s was not awar e of a busi ness cal l ed Ol d St r eamConser vat i on Associ at es.

-8-


9/37

t hei r names, but he never saw Russel l ' s name on any of t hose

envel opes.

3. Cash Out

Between 2007 and 2009, Russel l , accordi ng t o Henderson,

pai d $500 i n mont hl y househol d bi l l s and sever al t housand dol l ar s

f or hi s daught er ' s col l ege t ui t i on i n cash. As f or Russel l ' s r ent ,

wi t h t he except i on of a Febr uar y 2007 payment , evi dence at t r i al

al so showed hi s r ent got pai d wi t h cash or money orders.

4. Boston Financial

But t her e was more. Thr ough t he t est i mony of a human

r esour ces speci al i st f or Bost on Fi nanci al i n Rockl and, Mai ne, t he

government put f or t h the r esume and empl oyment appl i cat i on Russel l

submi t t ed i n Mar ch or Apr i l 2010 f or a cust omer servi ce

r epr esent at i ve posi t i on wi t h Bost on Fi nanci al . Russel l ' s resume

st at ed t hat bet ween J anuar y 2007 and August 2009, he was empl oyed

as Tr easur er f or Ol d St r eamConservat i on Associ at i on i n Mai ne. He

l i st ed as hi s pr i mar y r esponsi bi l i t i es managi ng t he budget and

bookkeepi ng. Hi s resume al so l i st ed hi s pr i or empl oyment as a

f i nanci al advi sor wi t h t he Br own Company and Pai neWebber .

Russel l ' s compl et ed empl oyment appl i cat i on st at ed hi s st ar t i ng and

f i nal sal ar i es f or Ol d St r eamConser vat i on wer e $10 per hour . The

appl i cat i on l i st ed Ol d St r eam' s busi ness addr ess, French as hi s

super vi sor , and payi ng bi l l s and communi cat i ng wi t h agenci es as hi s

dut i es. Russel l si gned t he appl i cat i on under t he cer t i f i cat i on

-9-


10/37

at t est i ng t o i t s t r ut hf ul ness. Af t er Russel l passed a backgr ound

check, Bost on Fi nanci al hi r ed hi m.

5. Russell's Defense

The def ense' s t heor y, as i ndi cat ed by cl osi ng ar gument s,

was t hat t her e was no pr oof Russel l ever r ecei ved cash f r omFr ench,

or t hat Russel l was even empl oyed by Fr ench. Russel l , accordi ng t o

t he def ense, got by ever y day by l i vi ng on cash gi f t s and l oans

f r om f ami l y and f r i ends and r educi ng hi s dai l y expenses. 7 And as

f ar as t he Bost on Fi nanci al appl i cat i on, Russel l l i st ed empl oyment

f or Fr ench onl y because he want ed t o avoi d the appear ance of a gap

i n hi s empl oyment hi st or y - - a gap he t hought woul d r ai se red f l ags

t o Bost on Fi nanci al and decr ease hi s chances of get t i ng hi r ed.

Af t er a f our - day t r i al , t he j ur y f ound Russel l gui l t y on

Count s Two t hr ough Fi ve, but not gui l t y on Count s One and Si x. The

di st r i ct cour t deni ed Russel l ' s r enewed mot i on f or a j udgment of

acqui t t al , or , i n t he al t er nat i ve, a new t r i al . Russel l ' s appeal

f ol l owed.

7Russel l ' s br ot her and si st er , as wel l as sever al of hi sf r i ends, t est i f i ed t hat t hey l oaned Russel l money bet ween 2007 and2009. At t or ney Mi chael Gr i f f i n t est i f i ed t hat at French' s r equest ,he i ncor por at ed Ol d St r eam Conservat i on i n 2006. Accor di ng t oGr i f f i n, Ol d St r eam Conser vat i on di d not empl oy Russel l , butRussel l di d ser ve as t he company spokesman and was aut hor i zed t osi gn checks on i t s behal f .

-10-


11/37

DISCUSSION

Russel l cl ai ms mul t i pl e er r or s bel ow. Fi r st , he

chal l enges t he j ur y i nst r uct i ons on wi l l f ul ness under 18 U. S. C.

1035( a) ( 2) . Second, he cont ends t hat t he gover nment f ai l ed t o

pr esent suf f i ci ent evi dence t hat hi s al l eged f al se st at ement s wer e

mat er i al t o suppor t t he convi ct i on. Thi r d, Russel l ar gues the

di st r i ct cour t er r oneousl y excl uded t est i mony by Hender son about

hi s st at e of mi nd when appl yi ng f or t he j ob wi t h Bost on Fi nanci al

i n 2010. And f i nal l y, Russel l makes mul t i pl e cl ai ms of

pr osecut or i al mi sconduct . We addr ess each argument i n ser i at i m,

pr ovi di ng addi t i onal f act s as necessar y.

I. Jury Instructions

We st ar t wi t h Russel l ' s chal l enge t o t he j ur y i nst r uct i on

on t he def i ni t i on of t he wi l l f ul ness el ement of 18 U. S. C.

1035( a) ( 2) . Because Russel l pr eser ved hi s obj ect i on t o t he

di st r i ct cour t ' s r ef usal t o gi ve hi s r equest ed i nst r ucti on, our

r evi ew i s de novo. Uni t ed St at es v. Fer nandez, Nos. 12- 1289, 12-

1290, 2013 WL 3215461, at *10 ( 1st Ci r . J une 26, 2013) ; Uni t ed

St at es v. Bai r d, 712 F. 3d 623, 627- 28 ( 1st Ci r . 2013) . We wi l l

r ever se t he di st r i ct cour t ' s r ef usal t o gi ve t he i nst r ucti on "onl y

i f t he i nst r uct i on was ( 1) subst ant i vel y cor r ect as a mat t er of

l aw, ( 2) not subst ant i al l y cover ed by the char ge as r ender ed, and

( 3) i nt egr al t o an i mpor t ant poi nt i n t he case so t hat t he omi ssi on

of t he i nst r uct i on ser i ousl y i mpai r ed t he def endant ' s abi l i t y t o

-11-


12/37

pr esent hi s def ense. " Bai r d, 712 F. 3d at 628; Uni t ed St at es v.

Whi t ney, 524 F. 3d 134, 138 ( 1st Ci r . 2008) .

18 U. S. C. 1035( a) ( 2) , t he char ged of f ense, pr ovi des i n

per t i nent par t :

( a) Whoever , i n any mat t er i nvol vi ng a heal t hcar e benef i t pr ogr am, knowi ngl y and wi l l f ul l y. . .

( 2) makes any mat er i al l y f al se, f i ct i t i ous, orf r audul ent st at ement s or r epr esent at i ons, ormakes or uses any mat er i al l y f al se wr i t i ng ordocument knowi ng t he same t o cont ai n anymat er i al l y f al se, f i ct i t i ous, or f r audul entst at ement or ent r y,

i n connect i on wi t h t he del i ver y of or paymentf or heal t h car e benef i t s, i t ems, or ser vi ces,shal l be f i ned under t hi s t i t l e or i mpr i sonednot more t han 5 year s, or both.

18 U. S. C. 1035( a) ( 2) .

I n char gi ng t he j ur y, t he di st r i ct cour t descri bed t he

el ement s of maki ng a f al se st at ement i n connect i on wi t h a heal t h

car e benef i t pr ogr am under 1035( a) ( 2) . The di st r i ct cour t

i nst r uct ed t hat t he government had t o pr ove beyond a r easonabl e

doubt si x el ement s. The f i r st was t hat Di r i go Choi ce,

"admi ni st er ed by the Di r i go Heal t h Agency, i s a heal t hcar e benef i t

pr ogr am as t hat phr ase i s def i ned i n t hese i nst r uct i ons. " The

second was t hat Russel l "knowi ngl y and wi l l f ul l y made a f al se

st at ement subst ant i al l y as char ged i n t he i ndi ct ment " f or each

count . The cour t i nst r uct ed t hat " [ a] f al se st at ement i s made

knowi ngl y and wi l l f ul l y i f Rodney Russel l knew i t was f al se or

-12-


13/37

demonst r at ed a reckl ess di sr egar d f or t he t r ut h wi t h a consci ous

pur pose t o avoi d l ear ni ng t he t r ut h. " The cour t t ol d t he j ur y t hat

" [ a] st at ement i s f al se i f i t was unt r ue when made. " To deci de

whet her t he def endant act ed knowi ngl y, t he cour t cont i nued, "you

may i nf er he had knowl edge of a f act i f you f i nd t hat he

del i ber at el y cl osed hi s eyes t o a f act t hat ot her wi se woul d have

been obvi ous t o hi m. " The j ur y was r emi nded t hat i t was "ent i r el y

up t o [ t hem] t o det er mi ne whether he del i ber at el y cl osed hi s eyes

t o t he f act and, i f so, what i nf er ence, i f any, shoul d be dr awn"

and t o "bear i n mi nd t hat mer e negl i gence or mi st ake i n f ai l i ng t o

l ear n t he f act i s not suf f i ci ent . "

The cour t t hen expl ai ned t he t hi r d el ement : t hat Russel l

"made t he st at ement vol unt ar i l y and i nt ent i onal l y. " The cour t

descr i bed "vol unt ar i l y and i nt ent i onal l y" t o "mean[ ] t hat t he

government must prove beyond a reasonabl e doubt t hat Mr . Russel l

di d not make t he st at ement by acci dent or mi st ake. " The cour t ' s

i nst r uct i ons t hen addr essed t he l ast t hr ee el ement s: t hat Russel l

"made t he f al se st at ement i n connect i on wi t h a heal t hcar e benef i t

pr ogr am"; t hat Russel l "made t he f al se st at ement i n connect i on wi t h

t he del i ver y of or payment f or heal t hcar e benef i t s, i t ems, or

ser vi ces" ; and l ast l y, t hat Russel l ' s "st at ement was mat er i al t o

t he Di r i go Heal t h Agency. " On mat er i al i t y, t he cour t i nst r uct ed

t he j ur y that "[ a] mat er i al f act or mat t er i s one t hat has a

-13-


14/37

nat ur al t endency to i nf l uence or be capabl e of i nf l uenci ng t he

deci si on of t he deci si onmaker t o whom i t was addr essed. "

On appeal , as he di d bel ow, Russel l says t he cour t ' s j ur y

i nst r uct i on on t he def i ni t i on of wi l l f ul ness was wr ong. Rel yi ng on

ot her ci r cui t deci si ons i nt er pr et i ng t he l anguage of 18 U. S. C.

1347, he cl ai ms t hat t o convi ct f or a vi ol at i on of 1035( a) ( 2) ,

t he government must not onl y pr ove that Russel l ' s st atement s were

f al se and t hat he knew t hey were f al se, but t hat he al so knew t hat

maki ng t hose f al se st at ement s was i l l egal . He says t he di st r i ct

cour t ' s r ef usal t o adopt hi s pr oposed i nst r uct i on on wi l l f ul ness,

r equi r i ng t hat t he gover nment pr ove i l l egal i t y or "bad pur pose, "

was er r oneous. 8

We have not had t he occasi on t o deci de whet her

wi l l f ul ness, as i t i s used i n 1035, r equi r es t he gover nment t o

pr ove that t he def endant knew t hat maki ng t he f al se st atement was

i l l egal . The Ni nt h Ci r cui t , however , r ecent l y t ackl ed t hi s i ssue

head- on i n Uni t ed St at es v. Aj oku, 718 F. 3d 882 ( 9t h Ci r . 2013) ,

and r ej ect ed t he argument t hat Russel l makes bef or e us - - t hat t he

8Russel l pr oposed t he f ol l owi ng i nst r uct i on on wi l l f ul ness:

An act or f ai l ur e t o act i s "wi l l f ul " i f done vol unt ar i l yand i nt ent i onal l y, and wi t h t he speci f i c i nt ent t o do

somet hi ng t he l aw f or bi ds, or wi t h speci f i c i nt ent t of ai l t o do somet hi ng t he l aw r equi r es t o be done; t hat i st o say, wi t h bad pur pose ei t her t o di sobey or t odi sr egar d t he l aw. Thus, i f you f i nd Rodney Russel lact ed i n good f ai t h, he cannot be gui l t y of t he cr i me orcr i mes char ged.

-14-


15/37

wi l l f ul ness el ement of 1035 r equi r es knowl edge of unl awf ul ness.

I d. at 890. I n Aj oku, t he cour t expl ai ned t hat wi l l f ul ness, i n t he

cont ext of f al se st at ement cr i mes such as 18 U. S. C 1001, i s

def i ned as " del i ber at el y and wi t h knowl edge" ; pr ovi ng t he def endant

knew maki ng t he f al se st at ement was i l l egal i s not r equi r ed. I d.

at 889. Such an i nt er pr et at i on of t he def i ni t i on of wi l l f ul ness,

t he cour t obser ved, i s consi st ent wi t h t he t r adi t i onal r ul e t hat

"i gnor ance of t he l aw i s no def ense. " I d. ( ci t i ng Br yan v. Uni t ed

St at es, 524 U. S. 184, 196 ( 1998) ) . The cour t went on t o expl ai n

t hat t he l anguage i n 1001 ( wher e i t got i t s def i ni t i on of

wi l l f ul ness) i s near l y i dent i cal t o t hat f ound i n 1035. I d.

( "Whi l e 1035 sanct i ons anyone who ' knowi ngl y and wi l l f ul l y . . .

makes any mat er i al l y f al se, f i ct i t i ous or f r audul ent st at ement s or

r epr esent at i ons, ' 1001 sanct i ons anyone who ' knowi ngl y and

wi l l f ul l y . . . makes any mat er i al l y f al se, f i ct i t i ous or

f r audul ent st at ement or r epr esent at i on. ' " ) . The cour t not ed t hat

t he onl y subst ant i ve di f f er ence bet ween t he t wo st at ut es i s t hat

1035 i s l i mi t ed t o mat t er s i nvol vi ng a heal t h car e benef i t

pr ogr am, whi l e 1001 deal s onl y wi t h mat t er s wi t hi n t he

j ur i sdi ct i on of t he execut i ve, l egi sl at i ve, or j udi ci al branch of

t he f eder al gover nment . I d. at 889.

I n addi t i on t o t he near l y i dent i cal l anguage i n t hese t wo

cr i mi nal st at ut es i nvol vi ng f al se st at ement s, t he cour t obser ved

t hat t hey wer e enact ed f or t he same pur pose: " t o pr ot ect f eder al

-15-


16/37

i nt er est s f r om t he har ms of knowi ng and wi l l f ul f r aud and

decept i on. " I d. at 890. I n l i ght of t hei r si mi l ar l anguage and

shar ed pur pose, t he cour t hel d t hat t he same def i ni t i on of

"wi l l f ul " used i n 1001 appl i es i n i nt er pr et i ng "wi l l f ul " i n

1035. I d. Because t he di st r i ct cour t ' s j ur y i nst r uct i ons used

t hat def i ni t i on - - i . e. , "del i ber at el y and wi t h knowl edge t hat t he

st atement s were unt r ue or t he document was f al se" - - t he Ni nt h

Ci r cui t concl uded t he di st r i ct cour t di d not er r when i nst r uct i ng

t he j ur y. I d. We agr ee wi t h t he Ni nt h Ci r cui t ' s r easoni ng and

hol d t hat , as used i n 1035, t he "wi l l f ul ness" el ement does not

r equi r e t he government t o pr ove that t he def endant knew i t was a

cr i me t o make t he par t i cul ar f al se st at ement .

Russel l ' s r el i ance on Br yan v. Uni t ed St at es, 524 U. S.

184 ( 1998) , t o ur ge us t o concl ude ot her wi se i s mi spl aced. I n

Br yan, t he def endant was convi ct ed of deal i ng i n f i r ear ms wi t hout

a l i cense i n vi ol at i on of 18 U. S. C. 924( a) ( 1) ( D) . 524 U. S. at

189- 90. The def endant chal l enged hi s convi ct i on, ar gui ng t hat t he

cour t er r ed by f ai l i ng t o i nst r uct t hat t he gover nment had t o pr ove

t hat he knew of t he l i censi ng r equi r ement . I d. at 190. Russel l

l at ches ont o t he Supr eme Cour t ' s observat i on that t he wor d

"wi l l f ul , " when used i n t he cr i mi nal cont ext , gener al l y means t he

act was under t aken wi t h a "bad pur pose. " I d. at 191. But t he

Supr eme Cour t al so made cl ear t hat " [ t ] he wor d ' wi l l f ul l y' i s

somet i mes sai d to be ' a word of many meani ngs' whose const r uct i on

-16-


17/37

i s of t en dependent on t he cont ext i n whi ch i t appear s. " I d. I n

t he cont ext of Russel l ' s case, whi ch i nvol ves a 1035( a)

vi ol at i on, we agr ee wi t h t he Ni nt h Ci r cui t t hat an i nst r uct i on on

"wi l l f ul ness" does not necessar i l y requi r e knowl edge of i l l egal i t y.

The ot her ci r cui t deci si ons ci t ed by Russel l do not hol d

ot her wi se. See Uni t ed St at es v. J ones, 664 F. 3d 966, 981 ( 5t h Ci r .

2011) ( hol di ng onl y t hat a j ur y i nst r uct i on l ower i ng t he mens r ea

r equi r ement f r om"knowi ngl y and wi l l f ul l y" t o "knew, or shoul d have

known" was i nappr opr i ate) ; Uni t ed St ates v. Del gado, 668 F. 3d 219,

225 & n. 3 ( 5t h Ci r . 2012) ( mer el y not i ng, but not gi vi ng subst ance

t o, t he wi l l f ul ness r equi r ement ) ; Uni t ed St at es v. Hayes, 574 F. 3d

460, 477- 78 ( 8t h Ci r . 2009) ( mot i on f or acqui t t al shoul d have been

grant ed wher e no evi dence suggest ed t hat def endant was aware that

f al se st at ement was bei ng made) . 9

Because t he di st r i ct cour t her e pr oper l y i nst r uct ed t he

j ury t hat t he gover nment need onl y prove t hat t he def endant ' s

st atement s were f al se and that t he def endant knew t hey were f al se,

we f i nd no er r or .

9Russel l ' s r el i ance on Uni t ed St at es v. Awad, 551 F. 3d 930,938- 40 ( 9t h Ci r . 2009) , i s par t i cul ar l y mi spl aced. As di scussedabove, even t o t he extent t hat di ct um i n t hat case suggest s t hatt her e can be no wi l l f ul ness wi t hout knowl edge of i l l egal i t y, noteven t he Ni nt h Ci r cui t appl i es t hat r ul e t o cases under 1035.See Aj oku, 718 F. 3d at 882.

-17-


18/37

II. Materiality

Russel l ' s next chal l enge concer ns t he mat er i al i t y of hi s

al l eged mi sr epr esent at i ons t o Di r i go on hi s 2008 and 2009 subsi dy

appl i cat i ons and cer t i f i cat i ons. He says t her e was i nsuf f i ci ent

evi dence f or t he j ur y t o concl ude that t he f al se st at ement s he made

wer e mat er i al t o Di r i go' s deci si on t o awar d hi m subsi di zed heal t h

care because even i f he was worki ng, hi s i ncome i n t hose years

woul d have st i l l made hi m el i gi bl e f or t he subsi dy.

We revi ew Russel l ' s suf f i ci ency of t he evi dence chal l enge

de novo, consi der i ng t he evi dence i n t he l i ght most f avor abl e t o

t he ver di ct . Uni t ed St at es v. Ri os- Or t i z, 708 F. 3d 310, 315 ( 1st

Ci r . 2013) . We wi l l r ever se onl y i f we f i nd t hat "no r at i onal

f act f i nder coul d have concl uded t hat t he evi dence pr esent ed at

t r i al , t oget her wi t h al l r easonabl e i nf er ences, est abl i shed each

el ement of t he cr i me beyond a r easonabl e doubt . " Uni t ed St ates v.

Symonevi ch, 688 F. 3d 12, 23 ( 1st Ci r . 2012) ( ci t i ng Uni t ed St at es

v. Rodr i guez- Vl ez, 597 F. 3d 32, 39 ( 1st Ci r . 2010) ) .

"[ A] f al se st at ement i s mat er i al i f i t has a ' nat ur al

t endency t o i nf l uence, or [ i s] capabl e of i nf l uenci ng, t he deci si on

of t he deci si onmaki ng body t o whi ch i t was addr essed. ' " Neder v.

Uni t ed St at es, 527 U. S. 1, 16 ( 1999) ( quot i ng Uni t ed St at es v.

Gaudi n, 515 U. S. 506, 509 ( 1995) ) ( al t er at i on i n or i gi nal ) . The

gover nment need not pr ove t hat t he f al se st at ement act ual l y

-18-


19/37

i nf l uenced or decei ved t he deci si onmaker . Uni t ed St at es v. Newel l ,

658 F. 3d 1, 17 ( 1st Ci r . 2011) .

The j ury her e coul d have r easonabl y concl uded t hat

Russel l ' s st at ement s had a nat ur al t endency t o i nf l uence Di r i go' s

deci si on t o awar d hi m subsi di zed heal t h car e, and t hus wer e

mat er i al , even i f Di r i go di d not act ual l y rel y on t hose st at ement s.

At t r i al , t he j ur y hear d t est i mony f r om Di r i go' s di r ector t hat

t here was a l i mi t on t he i ncome an appl i cant coul d ear n i n 2008 and

2009 t o be el i gi bl e f or an 80% heal t h car e subsi dy l i ke t he one

Russel l was awarded. The j ur y l ear ned t hat Di r i go does not empl oy

i nvest i gat or s t o ver i f y st at ement s made by appl i cant s on subsi dy

appl i cat i ons and t hat t he agency t her ef or e has t o r el y on

appl i cant s' st at ement s i n det er mi ni ng el i gi bi l i t y. The agency

r equi r es t he appl i cant t o si gn a cer t i f i cat i on t o hel p i t ensur e

t hat al l t he r epr esent at i ons made by t he appl i cant ar e t r ue.

Russel l was awarded a $7, 500 subsi dy i n 2008, and a $4, 100 subsi dy

i n Oct ober 2009, based on hi s r epr esent at i on i n hi s appl i cat i on

t hat he was nei t her empl oyed nor r ecei vi ng i ncome. He si gned t he

accompanyi ng cer t i f i cat i ons at t est i ng t o t he t r ut hf ul ness of hi s

st at ement s i n t hose appl i cat i ons.

Dur i ng cl osi ng argument s, def ense counsel argued t hat

Russel l ' s st at ement s coul d not have been mat er i al t o Di r i go' s

deci si on because he woul d have qual i f i ed f or a subsi dy even i f he

had accur atel y r eport ed hi s i ncome. The government , on t he other

-19-


20/37

hand, ur ged t hat mat er i al i t y t ur ns on whet her t he f al se st at ement s

have a nat ur al t endency t o i nf l uence or ar e capabl e of i nf l uenci ng

t he deci si onmaker . Whether Russel l ' s st atement s were mater i al was

ul t i mat el y a quest i on f or t he j ur y. But t he r ecor d cl ear l y

suppor t s a f i ndi ng t hat Russel l r ecei ved i ncome i n t he amount he

r epor t ed, pl us some addi t i onal sums t hat he di d not di scl ose. Had

he f or t hr i ght l y st at ed on hi s appl i cat i on t hat he had unspeci f i ed

amount s of undocument ed cash i ncome above t he pr eci se amount s he

r epor t ed, i t i s r easonabl e t o bel i eve t hat Di r i go mi ght wel l have

det er mi ned t hat he f ai l ed t o meet hi s bur den of pr ovi ng

el i gi bi l i t y. As we sai d, t he gover nment need onl y pr ove t hat t he

f al se st at ement had a "nat ur al t endency t o i nf l uence, or [ i s]

capabl e of i nf l uenci ng, t he deci si on. " Neder , 527 U. S. at 16

( quot i ng Gaudi n, 515 U. S. at 509) ( al t er at i on i n or i gi nal ) . Gi ven

t he evi dence pr esent ed at t r i al , we bel i eve t hat a r at i onal f act

f i nder coul d concl ude that t hey wer e mat er i al .

Russel l says t hat t he cour t ' s r ul i ngs on t he l oss amount

and r est i t ut i on at sent enci ng suppor t hi s argument t hat t he f al se

st at ement s wer e not "mat er i al " t o Di r i go' s deci si on t o awar d

Russel l subsi di zed heal t h car e and t hat , as a r esul t , t he j ur y' s

ver di ct cannot st and. The di st r i ct j udge' s r emar ks at Russel l ' s

sent enci ng do not change our vi ew. At sent enci ng, t he j udge hear d

counsel on t he amount of l oss and whet her r est i t ut i on shoul d be

ordered. The j udge summar i zed t he def ense' s argument - - namel y,

-20-


21/37

t hat t her e was no act ual l oss because "t he f al se st at ement di dn' t

make a di f f er ence. " The def ense' s t heor y, as under st ood by t he

j udge, was t hat even i f Russel l was wor ki ng at t he t i me of hi s

al l eged f al se st at ement s i n 2008 and 2010, t her e i s no evi dence he

ear ned more t han t he amount t hat he woul d have been al l owed t o ear n

t o r ecei ve subsi di zed cover age. And t hus, " i f he had t ol d t he

t r ut h, t he resul t woul d have been t he same. "

Not i ng t he compl exi t y i n cal cul at i ng t he l oss amount , t he

j udge concl uded t hat t her e was i nsuf f i ci ent evi dence i n t he r ecor d

t o det ermi ne what amount Russel l ear ned whi l e empl oyed by Fr ench

f r om t he f al l of 2007 t o J une 2010. Ther e was "no basi s, " i n t he

j udge' s vi ew, " t o l ogi cal l y come t o t he concl usi on t hat [ Russel l ]

made more t han t he amount s t hat woul d have ent i t l ed hi m t o t he

subsi dy . . . . " The j udge t hen addr essed t he gover nment ' s

ar gument t hat t he l oss cal cul at i on shoul d be det er mi ned by t he

amount i n pr emi ums ( est i mat ed by the government at $19, 000) t hat

Russel l i nt ended t o t ake by f al sel y cl ai mi ng he was not wor ki ng on

t he subsi dy r enewal appl i cat i ons. I n doi ng so, t he j udge sai d he

was not "convi nced, based on t h[ e] r ecor d, t hat [ Russel l ] i nt ended

t o st eal pr emi ums f r om t he Di r i go pr ogr am by f al sel y r epor t i ng no

i ncome. " The j udge was, however , convi nced t hat Russel l was

worki ng and t hat he was worki ng f or Mal col m Fr ench. What was

per pl exi ng f or t he j udge was why Russel l di d not si mpl y repor t he

was wor ki ng.

-21-


22/37

Because Russel l ' s ear ni ngs coul d not be cal cul at ed, t he

j udge concl uded he coul d nei t her det er mi ne t he l oss amount nor

or der r est i t ut i on. The j udge expl ai ned t hat t he r ecor d di d not

suppor t a f i ndi ng t hat Russel l "woul d not have been ent i t l ed t o t he

subsi dy i n any event . " And, t he j udge added, i f Russel l was

ent i t l ed t o t he subsi dy, t her e was no "vi ct i m f or whomr est i t ut i on

i s owed. "

The cour t ' s concl usi on as t o l oss amount and r est i t ut i on

does not cal l i nt o quest i on t he j ur y' s f i ndi ng t hat t he f al se

st at ement s t o Di r i go wer e mat er i al . I n i mposi ng t he sent ence, t he

cour t made cl ear t hat t he ver di ct was "compel l ed by t he evi dence, "

expl ai ni ng t hat Russel l "knew he was l yi ng when he compl eted t h[ e]

f or ms and sai d he was not wor ki ng. " I t was f or t he j ur y t o

det er mi ne whet her Russel l ' s mi sr epr esent at i ons t o Di r i go wer e

capabl e of i nf l uenci ng i t s deci si on t o awar d hi msubsi di zed heal t h

car e, even i f , as def ense counsel ar gued, hi s ear ni ngs at t he t i me

wer e so l ow t hat he st i l l woul d have been el i gi bl e t o r ecei ve t he

subsi dy. As i ndi cat ed by t he ver di ct , t hey answer ed i n t he

af f i r mat i ve, and we wi l l not di st ur b t hei r concl usi on.

III. State-of-Mind Exception Under Rule 803(3)

At t r i al , Hender son t est i f i ed t hat she was awar e Russel l

compl et ed an appl i cat i on wi t h Bost on Fi nanci al pr i or t o bei ng

of f er ed a j ob t her e. At t hat poi nt , def ense counsel asked her :

"Was Mr . Russel l wor r i ed t hat i f he di dn' t put down t hat he was

-22-


23/37

empl oyed by Ol d St r eam Conser vat i on and that he was earni ng money

f r om i t , t hat he woul dn' t get t he j ob wi t h Bost on Fi nanci al ?"

Af t er Henderson r esponded, "Yes, " t he government obj ected on

hear say gr ounds. Def ense counsel argued t hat Henderson' s t est i mony

t hat Russel l was wor r i ed was admi ssi bl e as a st at e- of - mi nd hear say

except i on under Feder al Rul e of Evi dence 803( 3) .

Af t er hear i ng ar gument f r om counsel and voi r di r e of

Henderson ( whi ch reveal ed she hel ped Russel l compl ete t he

appl i cat i on) , t he cour t r ul ed t hat Hender son' s t est i mony about

Russel l ' s wor r y and t he reason f or hi s wor r y was not admi ssi bl e

under t he r ul e. Russel l ' s st at ement t o Hender son t hat he was

wor r i ed, t he cour t sai d, was i nsepar abl e f r om Russel l ' s memor y

about hi s empl oyment hi st ory f r om2007 t o 2009 when compl et i ng t he

f orm.

On appeal , Russel l cont i nues t o pr ess t hat Hender son' s

t est i mony about Russel l ' s s t ate of mi nd when he was compl et i ng hi s

2010 j ob appl i cat i on f or Bost on Fi nanci al i s admi ssi bl e under Rul e

803( 3) . Under t hat r ul e, hear say i s admi ssi bl e i f i t i s a

st at ement t hat expr esses a decl ar ant ' s s t at e of mi nd at t he t i me

t he st at ement i s made. The r ul e al l ows, i n per t i nent par t , any:

st at ement of [ a] decl ar ant ' s t hen exi st i ngst at e of mi nd . . . such as i nt ent , pl an,mot i ve, desi gn, ment al f eel i ng . . . but noti ncl udi ng a st at ement of memor y or bel i ef t opr ove t he f act r emembered or bel i eved unl essi t r el at es t o the execut i on, r evocat i on,i dent i f i cat i on, or t er ms of decl ar ant ' s wi l l .

-23-


24/37

Fed. R. Evi d. 803( 3) .

To be admi ssi bl e under t he st at e- of - mi nd except i on, t he

decl ar at i on, among ot her t hi ngs, "must mi r r or a st at e of mi nd,

whi ch, i n l i ght of al l t he ci r cumst ances, i ncl udi ng pr oxi mi t y i n

t i me, i s r easonabl y l i kel y t o have been t he same condi t i on exi st i ng

at t he mat er i al t i me. " Uni t ed St at es v. Ri ver a- Her nndez, 497 F. 3d

71, 81 ( 1st Ci r . 2007) ( quot i ng Col asant o v. Li f e I ns. Co. of N.

Am. , 100 F. 3d 203, 212 ( 1st Ci r . 1996) ) ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks

and ci t at i ons omi t t ed) . Because "di sput es over whet her par t i cul ar

st at ement s come wi t hi n t he st at e- of - mi nd except i on ar e f act -

sensi t i ve, t he t r i al cour t i s i n t he best posi t i on t o r esol ve

t hem. " Col asant o, 100 F. 3d at 212.

Russel l ' s ar gument as t o why Henderson' s t est i mony shoul d

have been admi ss i bl e under Rul e 803( 3) i s conf usi ng. On t he one

hand, he says t hat her t est i mony does not at t empt t o est abl i sh that

he di d not f al sel y cl ai m he was unempl oyed on hi s subsi dy

appl i cat i ons; t he t est i mony, he says, was si mpl y t o r ef l ect hi s

st ate of mi nd i n 2010 t hat he l i st ed empl oyment wi t h Fr ench because

he was wor r i ed t hat i f he di d not , Bost on Fi nanci al woul d see a gap

i n hi s empl oyment hi st ory and not hi r e hi m. On t he other hand, he

cl ai ms t hat Henderson shoul d have been abl e t o descr i be hi s ment al

st at e i n 2010 t o expl ai n t he di f f er ence bet ween hi s 2010

appl i cat i on t o Bost on Fi nanci al ( whi ch repr esent ed he was empl oyed

-24-


25/37

by Fr ench) and hi s previ ous subsi dy appl i cat i ons ( whi ch r epr esent ed

he was unempl oyed) .

The di st r i ct cour t di d not er r i n excl udi ng Hender son' s

t est i mony. Rul e 803( 3) bar s t he i nt r oduct i on of "a st at ement of

memory or bel i ef t o pr ove the f act r emembered or bel i eved. "

Hender son was pr event ed f r om t est i f yi ng as t o Russel l ' s al l eged

bel i ef about hi s l ack of r ecent wor k hi st or y and t he i mpact i t

woul d have on a pr ospect i ve empl oyer ; as Russel l admi t s, one

pur pose of t hi s t est i mony was t o pr ove t hat Russel l l acked r ecent

wor k hi st or y. The cour t di d not er r i n excl udi ng t hi s t est i mony.

Even i f , f or ar gument ' s sake, t he di st r i ct cour t had

er r ed, any er r or was har ml ess. "Er r oneous evi dent i ar y r ul i ngs ar e

har ml ess i f i t i s hi ghl y pr obabl e t hat t he er r or di d not af f ect t he

out come of t he case. " McDonough v. Ci t y of Qui ncy, 452 F. 3d 8,

19- 20 ( 1st Ci r . 2006) . That r equi r ement i s sat i sf i ed her e.

Henderson' s t est i mony addr essed why Russel l sai d he was Fr ench' s

empl oyee on t he 2010 appl i cat i on, when he cl ai med on hi s benef i t s

appl i cat i ons t hat he was not - - i . e. , t o avoi d a gap i n empl oyment

whi ch woul d concer n a f ut ure empl oyer . Even t hough Henderson' s

t est i mony on t hat speci f i c poi nt was excl uded, bot h she and

J enni f er Hol ger son, a human r esour ces r epr esent at i ve at Bost on

Fi nanci al , t est i f i ed about how t hey woul d per cei ve a subst ant i al

gap i n a j ob appl i cant ' s empl oyment hi st or y. Henderson, as the

di r ect or of an assi st ed l i vi ng f aci l i t y who hi r ed empl oyees,

-25-


26/37

expl ai ned t hat she woul d vi ew wi t h skept i ci sm any appl i cat i on t hat

had a f our - year gap i n empl oyment . Hol ger son t est i f i ed t hat such

a gap woul d r ai se "r ed f l ags" when r evi ewi ng a j ob appl i cat i on.

I n hi s cl osi ng ar gument , def ense counsel expl oi t ed

Hol ger son' s t est i mony. He ar gued t hat Russel l sai d he was French' s

empl oyee on hi s 2010 Bost on Fi nanci al appl i cat i on because i f he di d

not , "he' d have t o deal wi t h a f our - year empl oyment gap, " whi ch as

Hol ger son t est i f i ed, "woul d r ai se r ed f l ags i f t her e wasn' t an

adequat e expl anat i on f or i t . " Thus, even wi t hout Hender son' s

t est i mony addr essi ng t he reason Russel l was worr i ed when compl et i ng

t he j ob appl i cat i on, t he j ur y had l ear ned f r om Hol ger son, as

poi nt ed out by def ense counsel i n hi s cl osi ng ar gument , t hat a

potent i al empl oyer woul d be concer ned about an appl i cant who had a

f our - year gap i n hi s empl oyment .

IV. Prosecutorial Misconduct

Russel l ' s pr osecut or i al mi sconduct cl ai mat t acks var i ous

st atement s made by the pr osecut or i n hi s cl osi ng and t he

pr osecut or ' s al l eged r ef er ence t o Russel l ' s gambl i ng when el i ci t i ng

t est i mony f r om a wi t ness. Because Russel l r ai sed no obj ect i on at

t r i al , we r evi ew f or pl ai n er r or . See Uni t ed St at es v. Kasenge,

660 F. 3d 537, 541 ( 1st Ci r . 2013) . Under t hat st andar d, Russel l

must show t hat : " ( 1) an er r or occur r ed ( 2) whi ch was cl ear or

obvi ous and whi ch not onl y ( 3) af f ect ed t he def endant ' s subst ant i al

r i ght s, but al so ( 4) ser i ousl y i mpai r ed t he f ai r ness, i nt egr i t y, or

-26-


27/37

publ i c r eput at i on of [ t he] pr oceedi ngs. " I d. at 542 ( quot i ng

Uni t ed St at es v. Duar t e, 246 F. 3d 56, 60 ( 1st Ci r . 2001) ) . We wi l l

r ever se onl y i f , i n l i ght of t he ent i r e r ecor d, t he chal l enged

pr osecut or i al conduct "so poi soned t he wel l t hat t he t r i al ' s

out come was l i kel y af f ect ed. " Uni t ed St at es v. Hender son, 320 F. 3d

92, 107 ( 1st Ci r . 2003) ( quot i ng Uni t ed St at es v. Sepul veda, 15

F. 3d 1161, 1188 ( 1st Ci r . 1993) ) . To make t hat assessment , we

consi der : " ' ( 1) t he sever i t y of t he pr osecut or ' s mi sconduct ,

i ncl udi ng whet her i t was del i ber at e or acci dent al ; ( 2) t he cont ext

i n whi ch t he mi sconduct occur r ed; ( 3) whether t he j udge gave

cur at i ve i nst r uct i ons and t he l i kel y ef f ect of such i nst r uct i ons;

and ( 4) t he st r engt h of t he evi dence agai nst t he def endant s. ' "

Kasenge, 660 F. 3d at 542 ( quot i ng Uni t ed St ates v.

Nel sonRodr i guez, 319 F. 3d 12, 38 ( 1st Ci r . 2003) ) . Wi t h t hi s

st andar d i n mi nd, we tur n f i r st t o the speci f i c st at ement s made by

t he pr osecut or at cl osi ng t hat Russel l cl ai ms r equi r e r ever sal .

A. The Prosecutor's Closing Argument

1. Alleged Reference to Russell's Failure to Testify

Russel l f i r st cont ends t hat t he pr osecut or i mpr oper l y

comment ed on hi s f ai l ur e t o t est i f y by ar gui ng: ( 1) " [ w] hy do you

suppose the def endant woul d not want hi s name l i st ed as t r easurer"

of Ol d St r eamConservat i on dur i ng a t i me when he was t el l i ng Di r i go

t hat he was unempl oyed and had no i ncome; ( 2) t hat t he j ur y woul d

"know f r om hi s own j ob appl i cat i on that t he def endant was bei ng

-27-


28/37

pai d by Ol d St r eam between 2007 and 2009, but t here was not a

si ngl e paycheck deposi t ed i nt o t he def endant ' s bank account dur i ng

t hat per i od of t i me"; and ( 3) t hat "[ t ] her e' s no i ndi cat i on i n [ t he

cal l l og] t hat Mr . Russel l cal l ed up Di r i go Heal t h and sai d, whoa,

wai t a mi nut e, what am I get t i ng t hese benef i t s f or ?" Russel l

r eci t es t hese stat ement s, but he f ai l s t o expl ai n why they

const i t ut e i mpr oper comment ary.

I n assessi ng whet her a pr osecut or has i mpr oper l y

comment ed on a def endant ' s exer ci se of hi s Fi f t h Amendment r i ght s

agai nst sel f - i ncr i mi nat i on, we t ypi cal l y l ook t o "whet her t he

pr osecut or ' s l anguage shows a mani f est i nt ent i on t o comment on t he

def endant ' s f ai l ur e t o t est i f y and whet her t he j ur y woul d nat ur al l y

and necessar i l y underst and i t t o be a comment on t he def endant ' s

f ai l ur e t o t est i f y. " Uni t ed St at es v. Bar bour , 393 F. 3d 82, 90

( 1st Ci r . 2004) ( ci t i ng Uni t ed St at es v. Wi hbey, 75 F. 3d 761, 769

( 1st Ci r . 1996) ) . I n doi ng so, we nei t her " l i ght l y i nf er t hat a

pr osecut or i nt ends an ambi guous r emark t o have i t s most damagi ng

meani ng" nor do "we assume t he j ur y wi l l dr aw f r omt he comment s t he

most damagi ng meani ng. " I d. at 91.

I n t hi s case, however , Russel l ' s argument t hat t he

pr osecut or ' s st at ement s i mpr oper l y comment ed on hi s f ai l ur e t o

t est i f y i s undevel oped and unsuppor t ed by any r ef er ence t o l egal

aut hor i t y. I t i s t her ef or e wai ved. See Cr uz v. Br i st ol - Myer s

Squi bb Co. , PR, I nc. , 699 F. 3d 563, 572 ( 1st Ci r . 2012) . The

-28-


29/37

pr osecut or ' s s t atement s cannot pl ausi bl y be const r ued as comment s

on Russel l ' s f ai l ur e t o t est i f y. But even i f t he comment s wer e

i mpr oper ( and, agai n, we do not see how t hey were) , t hey di d not

l i kel y af f ect t he out come of t he t r i al . See Hender son, 320 F. 3d at

107. The comments wer e made once and not el aborat ed upon, and

def ense counsel di d not t i mel y obj ect t o t he comment s, whi ch, as

our case l aw suggest s, makes i t l ess l i kel y t he remar ks i nf ect ed

t he j ur y. See Uni t ed St at es v. Shoup, 476 F. 3d 38, 44 ( 1st Ci r .

2007) ; Uni t ed St at es v. Pr ocopi o, 88 F. 3d 21, 31 ( 1st Ci r . 1996) .

Any pot ent i al i nf l uence on t he j ur y was mi t i gat ed by the

j ury i nst r uct i ons, whi ch r epeated t he gover nment ' s beyond- a-

r easonabl e- doubt bur den, and st ated t hat t he def endant had no

obl i gat i on t o t est i f y, and t hat t he j ur y shoul d dr aw no i nf er ence

f r om hi s choi ce. I n bot h hi s pr el i mi nar y and f i nal j ur y

i nst r uct i ons, t he j udge i nst r uct ed t he j ur y t hat t he l awyer ' s

comment s and cl osi ng ar gument s were not evi dence, and t hat i t was

t o deci de t he f act s f r om t he evi dence pr esent ed. We assume t he

j ury f ol l owed t hese i nst r uct i ons. See Mor al es- Val l el anes v.

Pot t er , 605 F. 3d 27, 34- 35 ( 1st Ci r . 2010) . Fi nal l y, t he evi dence

of Russel l ' s gui l t was st r ong, i ncl udi ng t he r enewal subsi dy

appl i cat i ons i ndi cat i ng Russel l was not empl oyed or r ecei vi ng any

i ncome and t he wi t nesses who t est i f i ed t hat Russel l was seen

wor ki ng i n some capaci t y f or Fr ench dur i ng t hat t i me.

-29-


30/37

Thus, t he prosecutor ' s comment s wer e not si gni f i cant

enough t o af f ect Russel l ' s r i ght s or ser i ousl y i mpai r hi s t r i al .

2. The Conspiracy Theory Related Comments

Russel l next ar gues t hat t he pr osecut or made mul t i pl e

comment s whi ch, t aken t oget her , i mpr oper l y i nsi nuat ed that Bar bar a

French, Mal col m French, French' s empl oyees, Russel l , and ot her s

conspi r ed t o hi de damagi ng evi dence ( t hat Russel l was worki ng and

bei ng pai d under t he t abl e) f r omt he gover nment . The pr osecut or ' s

cl osi ng di d not expl i ci t l y ar gue t hat such a conspi r acy exi st ed.

Russel l nonet hel ess cl ai ms t hat t he comment s al l uded to one, and

t hat because the evi dence pr esent ed at t r i al di d not suppor t a

conspi r acy t heory, t he comment s somehow amounted t o pr osecut or i al

mi sconduct .

a. Malcolm French and Barbara French

We st ar t wi t h Russel l ' s argument t hat t he pr osecut or

i mpr oper l y comment ed on t he Frenches' " f ai l ur e t o t est i f y, "

al l udi ng t o a conspi r acy bet ween t he Fr enches and Russel l . 10 Dur i ng

hi s cl osi ng ar gument , t he pr osecut or sai d:

Now, Bost on Fi nanci al has somebody check hi sr ef er ences. You hear d Ms. Hol ger son expl ai nt he pr act i ce and pr ocedur e t hat Bost onFi nanci al f ol l ows ever y si ngl e t i me somebody

10Russel l says t hat by at t r i but i ng cer t ai n st at ement s t o t heFr enches and dr awi ng the i mage of a conspi r acy between t hem andRussel l , t he pr osecut or comment ed on the Fr enches' f ai l ur e t ot est i f y. Because t her e ar e no Fi f t h Amendment i mpl i cat i ons her e,we do not see how t he prosecut or ' s comment s coul d have beeni mpr oper l y r ef er enci ng t he Frenches' f ai l ur e t o t est i f y.

-30-


31/37

appl i es f or a j ob. Mr . Russel l knew t hat t heywer e goi ng t o check hi s r ef er ences. He si gneda r el ease aut hor i zi ng Bost on Fi nanci al t ocont act hi s r ef er ences . . . . He pr ovi dedMal col m Fr ench' s name and t el ephone number ,and you know f r om Ms. Hol ger son t hat i t i s

Bost on Fi nanci al ' s pr act i ce t o check t her ef er ences bef or e hi r i ng and t hat t heyf ol l owed t hat pr act i ce i n t hi s case.

The prosecutor t hen went on t o make t he f ol l owi ng st at ement :

Ms. Hol ger son [ f r omBost on Fi nanci al ] . . . t ol dyou . . . t hat i f she had r ecei ved i nf or mat i oncont r ar y t o what was di scl osed i n t heappl i cat i on, she woul d have quest i oned Mr .Russel l about i t . She al so t ol d you she neverdi d because she never had t o . . . . I t i s f ai r

f or you t o i nf er f r om t hat evi dence and f r omMs. Hol ger son' s t est i mony t hat Mal col m Frenchconf i r med t hat t he def endant worked f or Ol dSt r eam Conser vat i on between 2007 and 2009.

Russel l ar gues t hi s l at t er comment was i mpr oper f or t wo

r easons. Fi r st , he cl ai ms Hol ger son never sai d any of t hi s.

Second, he says t hat because Mal col m Fr ench i s t he onl y one who

coul d have conf i r med whether Russel l worked f or hi m, aski ng t he

j ury t o i nf er f r om Hol ger son' s t est i mony t hat Fr ench conf i r med

Russel l ' s empl oyment amounted t o i mproper comment on French' s

f ai l ur e t o t est i f y. A l ook at bot h t he pr osecut or ' s st at ement s and

Hol ger son' s t est i mony at t r i al show t hat t he pr osecut or ' s

descr i pt i on of Hol ger son' s t est i mony was accur at e.

Hol ger son t est i f i ed t hat a t hi r d- par t y vendor , St er l i ng

Fi nanci al ( "St er l i ng") , conduct s backgr ound checks on al l Bost on

Fi nanci al appl i cant s. The backgr ound check i ncl udes an empl oyment

r ef er ence check. Hol ger son expl ai ned t hat i f Bost on Fi nanci al

-31-


32/37

cannot conf i r m a candi dat e' s empl oyment hi st or y, i t wi l l "r each

back out t o t he candi date and do some resear ch wi t h t hem, ask f or

pr oof of empl oyment or an expl anat i on. " And i f i t cannot conf i r m

t hat somebody worked where t hey sai d t hey worked, t he di scr epancy

woul d be br ought t o her at t ent i on. Hol ger son sai d t hat i t i s her

pr act i ce t o f ol l ow up on such i nf ormat i on and t hat she woul d not

i gnor e that t ype of i nf or mat i on and extend a candi dat e an of f er .

When i t came to Russel l ' s appl i cat i on, Bost on Fi nanci al ,

accor di ng t o Hol ger son, f ol l owed t he same hi r i ng pr ocess. She was

per sonal l y i nvol ved i n t hat pr ocess; she r evi ewed Russel l ' s r esume,

conduct ed hi s phone scr eeni ng i nt er vi ew, schedul ed hi mt o i nt er vi ew

wi t h a manager , and extended hi m an of f er . Hol ger son t est i f i ed

t hat St er l i ng r an a backgr ound check on Russel l ( whi ch i ncl uded t he

empl oyment r ef er ence check) and that she never hear d f r omSt er l i ng

t hat t her e was a pr obl em wi t h Russel l ' s backgr ound check.

I n l i ght of Hol ger son' s t est i mony, we see no er r or i n t he

pr osecut or ' s st atement s t hat Hol gerson sai d she woul d have known i f

t he empl oyment r ef erence check on Russel l r eveal ed any

di scr epanci es. The pr osecut or ' s st at ement t hat Hol ger son woul d

have quest i oned Russel l about i t was j ust anot her way of

summari zi ng Hol gerson' s t est i mony t hat she woul d have f ol l owed up

on t hi s type of i nf or mat i on. St at i ng t hat i t was f ai r f or t he j ur y

t o i nf er f r om Hol ger son' s t est i mony t hat Mal col m French conf i r med

Russel l ' s empl oyment wi t h Fr ench i n connect i on wi t h t he j ob

-32-


33/37

appl i cat i on t o Bost on Fi nanci al had not hi ng t o do wi t h French' s

f ai l ur e t o t est i f y. The i nf er ence t hat French conf i r med Russel l ' s

empl oyment wi t h hi m can be dr awn f r omHol gerson' s t est i mony about

Bost on Fi nanci al ' s hi r i ng pr ocess as i t appl i ed t o Russel l .

Movi ng on t o Russel l ' s chal l enge t o t he pr osecut or ' s

comment s about Barbara Fr ench, Russel l t akes i ssue wi t h t he

pr osecut or ' s st at ement t hat she "conveni ent l y f ai l ed t o send i n t he

mont hl y Col d St r eam Cont r act i ng gener al l edger " f or J anuar y,

Febr uary, and March 2007. We see no i mpr opr i et y. The pr osecut or

was " ent i t l ed t o dr aw t he j ur y' s at t ent i on t o t he bal ance of

evi dence on cont est ed i ssues. " Uni t ed St at es v. St r oman, 500 F. 3d

61, 65 ( 1st Ci r . 2007) . The Frenches' account ant , Gai l Davi s,

t est i f i ed t hat Bar bar a French di d not send her t he gener al l edger

( whi ch Barbara Fr ench managed) f or J anuary, Febr uary, March, or

Apr i l 2007. Even t hough t he government f ocused Davi s on whether or

not she was sent t hose l edger s ( r egar dl ess of t he r eason) , Davi s

t est i f i ed t hat Bar bar a' s oper at i ng syst em had cr ashed because she

had been usi ng an out dated operat i ng syst emwhi ch i n t ur n pr event ed

her f r om sendi ng t he l edger s ( cor r espondi ng t o J anuar y, Febr uar y,

and March 2007) .

Davi s f ur t her t est i f i ed t hat t he newer oper at i ng system

gener at ed checks t he same way t he ol der syst em di d. When shown a

copy of a check f r omCol d St r eamCont r act i ng t o Gr i f f i n Gr eenhouse

dated March 16, 2007, Davi s conf i r med t hat t he date of t he check

-33-


34/37

i ndi cates i t woul d have been generated even under t he ol der

oper at i ng syst em. And when asked whet her she woul d know about such

cash t r ansact i ons, Davi s t est i f i ed t hat she woul d onl y know about

t hem i f t he Fr enches spoke t o her about t hem or i f t hose

t r ansact i ons wer e document ed on t he l edger . I t was up t o t he j ur y

t o deci de whether Barbara Fr ench di d not send Davi s t he l edgers f or

J anuar y, February, and Mar ch 2007 ( gi ven t he evi dence of t he check

t o Gr i f f i n Gr eenhouse) because ther e wer e t r ansact i ons she di d not

want Davi s t o know about or whether t he l edgers were not del i ver ed

t o Davi s due t o an oper at i onal syst em mal f unct i on ( gi ven Davi s' s

t est i mony on t hat poi nt ) . The pr osecut or ' s r emar k mer el y at t empt ed

t o ur ge t he j ur y t o dr aw t he r easonabl e i nf er ence t hat Bar bar a

French i nt ent i onal l y f ai l ed t o send Davi s t he l edger s i n l i ght of

t he evi dence t hat Col d St r eammade check payment s t hat were nei t her

noted on t he l edger nor shar ed wi t h Davi s.

b. Testimony of French's Accountant

We f i nd no mer i t i n Russel l ' s addi t i onal cl ai m t hat t he

pr osecut or ' s r emar ks over st at ed Davi s' s test i mony. I n ar gui ng t hat

t he evi dence est abl i shed t hat Russel l was bei ng pai d i n cash by

Fr ench i n 2007, 2008, and 2009, t he pr osecut or sai d:

The evi dence est abl i shes t hat Col d St r eam wasdeal i ng i n cash at Gr i f f i n Gr eenhouse. Ol dSt r eamhas cash bei ng deposi t ed i nt o i t s account .We know t hat none of t hi s cash i s goi ng thr ought hei r books and r ecor ds; Mal col m' s pai daccount ant t ol d you t hat and est abl i shed t hat f oryou. She t ol d you t hat i f Mal col m was payi ngexpenses i n cash and not wi t hdr awi ng t he cash

-34-


35/37

f r om t he bank account and not t el l i ng her abouti t , she woul d have no reason t o know about i t. . . .

The prosecut or ' s summar y was a f ai r r epr esent at i on of t he

account ant ' s t est i mony. When asked about cash wi t hdr awal s f r omt he

Col d St r eam account , Davi s t est i f i ed t hat t her e was onl y one cash

wi t hdr awal i n t he thr ee- year per i od ( f r om2007 t o 2009) f or $200 or

$500 t o make a cash payment t o an oi l company. Accordi ng t o Davi s,

i f Col d St r eamhad t ol d her i t "kept cash on- hand, " she "woul d know

about i t . " Davi s al so sai d t hat i f Col d St r eam had any cash on-

hand, i t woul d have t o be repor t ed on i t s t ax ret ur ns; she di d not

know of any cash on- hand l i st ed on Col d St r eam' s t ax ret ur ns.

3. "Bagman"

Russel l next t akes i ssue wi t h t he pr osecut or ' s st at ement

t hat " [ t ] he def endant act i ng as t he bagman dr oppi ng of f bags of

cash . . . [ t ] hi s i s how Mr . [ J er al d] Davi s r emember ed Mr .

Russel l . " Russel l says t hat i n addi t i on t o t he f act t hat Davi s di d

not use t he t er m "bagman, " t he t er m bagman conj ur es up an

i mper mi ss i bl e unsavor y connot at i on t hat war r ant s a new t r i al . We

di sagr ee. The pr osecut or ' s comment s r ef er r i ng t o Davi s' s t est i mony

t hat he remembered Russel l dr oppi ng of f bags of cash was consi st ent

wi t h Davi s' s test i mony. Davi s test i f i ed t hat Russel l pai d $9, 000

t o $11, 000 i n cash f or t r uckl oads of soi l and mul t i pl e bags of

f er t i l i zer f r omGr i f f i n Gr eenhouse. Davi s sai d Russel l br ought i n

t he cash i n a Zi pl oc bag on mor e t han one occasi on. When asked

-35-


36/37

what st ood out t he most i n Davi s' s mi nd about Russel l , Davi s sai d,

"The cash. "

We f i nd not hi ng i nappr opr i at e about usi ng the wor d

"bagman" t o descr i be Russel l , when Davi s i n f act t est i f i ed t hat

Russel l pur chased mat er i al s f r om Gr i f f i n Gr eenhouse wi t h cash

st uf f ed i n Zi pl oc bags. Because t he pr osecut or ' s comment s

r ef l ect ed a f ai r i nt er pr et at i on of Davi s' s t est i mony, t hey di d not

const i t ut e pr osecut or i al mi sconduct . 11

B. The Prosecutor's References to Gambling

Russel l makes one l ast cl ai m of mi sconduct based on t he

pr osecut or ' s cr oss- exami nat i on of Russel l ' s f r i end, Geor ge

Har t mann. The pr osecut or asked Har t mann about t he l ast t i me he had

seen Russel l . Hart mann r esponded t hat he had di nner wi t h Russel l

11We al so rej ect Russel l ' s cursory ar gument t hat t he pr osecut orat t empt ed t o rope i n t o the conspi r acy Hender son ( Russel l ' s wi f e)

and Fr ench' s empl oyees by mi susi ng t hei r gr and j ur y t est i mony.Russel l says t he pr osecut or i mpr oper l y began hi s cr oss- exami nat i onof Henderson by aski ng her i f she remembered her gr and j ur yt est i mony, i nst ead of f i r st aski ng her a quest i on whi ch mi ght haver eveal ed she needed her memory r ef r eshed wi t h her gr and j ur yt est i mony. Russel l f ur t her cl ai ms t he pr osecut or ' s i magi nar yconspi r acy t heor y was appar ent by hi s st at ement s i n cl osi ng aboutt he di f f erences between t he gr and j ur y test i mony of Fogg, Benson,and Webber ( al l Fr ench empl oyees) , and t hei r t est i mony at t r i al .Russel l ' s r epl y ar gues t hat mi susi ng t he gr and j ur y t est i mony i nt hi s way was a del i ber at e at t empt t o mi schar act er i ze wi t nesst est i mony. Russel l nei t her pr esent s any devel oped anal ysi s nor

r ef er ences any r el evant case l aw t o suppor t hi s cl ai ms. We decl i net o addr ess such undevel oped argument s. See Col n v. R. K. Gr ace &Co. , 358 F. 3d 1, 56 ( 1st Ci r . 2003) ( "I t i s not t hi s cour t ' s r ol et o assembl e a coherent argument f or one si de merel y becauseevi dent i ary pi eces are ment i oned somewher e among t he f act ualr eci t at i ons and t he topi c sent ence of t he ar gument i s suppl i ed i nt he ar gument sect i on of t he br i ef . " ) .

-36-


37/37

t he pr evi ous eveni ng at " Hol l ywood Sl ot s. " Russel l says t hi s

t est i mony amount ed t o an i mpermi ss i bl e r ef erence t o gambl i ng. The

pr osecut or ' s l i ne of quest i oni ng had not hi ng t o do wi t h gambl i ng.

The quest i ons f ocused on what Har t mann and Russel l di scussed at

di nner , who el se was t her e, what Har t mann and def ense counsel

di scussed t he ni ght bef or e, and ot her mat t er s unr el at ed t o

gambl i ng. The ot her i nst ances i n whi ch Russel l says t he pr osecut or

i mpr oper l y rai sed t he gambl i ng i ssue ( af t er t he cour t had t ol d hi m

t hat i nt r oduci ng a gambl i ng i ssue i nt o t he case may be pr ej udi ci al )

occur r ed out si de of t he j ur y' s pr esence - - namel y, at si de bar

dur i ng t he t est i mony of Russel l ' s f i r st wi f e, af t er voi r di r e of

hi s cur r ent wi f e, Henderson, and at t he end of t he second day of

t r i al . Russel l poi nt s t o no ot her t i me dur i ng whi ch t he j ur y hear d

any t est i mony by wi t nesses about Russel l ' s gambl i ng.

I n sum, nei t her t he pr osecut or ' s st at ement s dur i ng

cl osi ng ar gument s nor hi s quest i ons i n el i ci t i ng t est i mony f r om

Har t mann necessi t at e rever sal .

CONCLUSION

For t he af or ement i oned r easons, we af f i r m t he j udgment

bel ow.

Documents

United States v. Russell, 1st Cir. (2013)