ILNews

7th Circuit upholds mail fraud convictions

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Although it found the evidence presented in a mail fraud case “thin,” the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals viewed it as enough to send the case involving three Calumet Township Trustee’s Office employees to the jury.

Elected Trustee Dozier T. Allen Jr., Deputy Trustee Wanda Joshua, and Deputy Finance Trustee Ann Marie Karras were charged with two counts of mail fraud following the discovery that they took payments from the Indiana Department of Workforce Development Services for work they did not perform. The Calumet Township Trustee’s Office could receive up to $4,167 each month from IDWDS stemming from a federal grant for the welfare-to-work programs. Between November 2000 and December 2002, more than $170,000 was deposited into a bank account that was then distributed to the three as “administrative fees.”

During a hearing on the matter, trustee’s office attorney Frederick Work said that the three could receive compensation beyond their budgeted salaries, but they could not be paid if they didn’t perform any work related to the grant money.

The defendants argued that they couldn’t be convicted because the evidence on the mailing element was insufficient to sustain the convictions of mail fraud. They claim no evidence shows that the checks were actually mailed from the IDWDS office rather than hand-delivered. The offices are only several blocks away.

In United States of America v. Wanda Joshua, et al., Nos. 10-2140, 10-2181, 10-2182, the 7th Circuit judges credited the testimony of Angela Lewis, the IDWDS senior fiscal accountant in charge of delivering reimbursement checks, who said they generally sent checks to the office by mail. When put through the mail, the envelopes were run through a postage meter. Sometimes they were picked up by an office employee.

The two envelopes in question were metered but didn’t show postage marks as being mailed. Lewis testified that one of the envelopes was mailed. The judges also questioned if the envelopes were going to be picked up by an employee or hand-delivered, why would the IDWDS waste money on postage?

“The envelopes here were metered; there is no evidence that the agency hand-delivered any metered mail; and so the jury was entitled to infer that they were mailed,” wrote Judge Diane Wood. “Though hand delivery was possible, this by itself is not enough for the defendants.”

The 7th Circuit also rejected the defendants’ arguments that Skilling v. United States, 130 S. Ct. 2896 (2010) compelled them to reverse the convictions, and the District Court improperly instructed the jury regarding their advice-of-counsel defense. The judges found neither of those arguments has merit.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT