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.


Post a comment to this story

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. If a class action suit or other manner of retribution is possible, count me in. I have email and voicemail from the man. He colluded with opposing counsel, I am certain. My case was damaged so severely it nearly lost me everything and I am still paying dearly.

  2. There's probably a lot of blame that can be cast around for Indiana Tech's abysmal bar passage rate this last February. The folks who decided that Indiana, a state with roughly 16,000 to 18,000 attorneys, needs a fifth law school need to question the motives that drove their support of this project. Others, who have been "strong supporters" of the law school, should likewise ask themselves why they believe this institution should be supported. Is it because it fills some real need in the state? Or is it, instead, nothing more than a resume builder for those who teach there part-time? And others who make excuses for the students' poor performance, especially those who offer nothing more than conspiracy theories to back up their claims--who are they helping? What evidence do they have to support their posturing? Ultimately, though, like most everything in life, whether one succeeds or fails is entirely within one's own hands. At least one student from Indiana Tech proved this when he/she took and passed the February bar. A second Indiana Tech student proved this when they took the bar in another state and passed. As for the remaining 9 who took the bar and didn't pass (apparently, one of the students successfully appealed his/her original score), it's now up to them (and nobody else) to ensure that they pass on their second attempt. These folks should feel no shame; many currently successful practicing attorneys failed the bar exam on their first try. These same attorneys picked themselves up, dusted themselves off, and got back to the rigorous study needed to ensure they would pass on their second go 'round. This is what the Indiana Tech students who didn't pass the first time need to do. Of course, none of this answers such questions as whether Indiana Tech should be accredited by the ABA, whether the school should keep its doors open, or, most importantly, whether it should have even opened its doors in the first place. Those who promoted the idea of a fifth law school in Indiana need to do a lot of soul-searching regarding their decisions. These same people should never be allowed, again, to have a say about the future of legal education in this state or anywhere else. Indiana already has four law schools. That's probably one more than it really needs. But it's more than enough.

  3. This man Steve Hubbard goes on any online post or forum he can find and tries to push his company. He said court reporters would be obsolete a few years ago, yet here we are. How does he have time to search out every single post about court reporters and even spy in private court reporting forums if his company is so successful???? Dude, get a life. And back to what this post was about, I agree that some national firms cause a huge problem.

  4. rensselaer imdiana is doing same thing to children from the judge to attorney and dfs staff they need to be investigated as well

  5. Sex offenders are victims twice, once when they are molested as kids, and again when they repeat the behavior, you never see money spent on helping them do you. That's why this circle continues