ILNews

Conspiracy, false statements convictions stand

Jennifer Nelson
January 1, 2008
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals has affirmed the convictions of participating in a price-fixing conspiracy and making false statements to federal law enforcement of an Indianapolis man involved in a concrete price-fixing scheme.

In United States of America v. Christopher A. Beaver, No. 07-1381, Beaver appealed his convictions, arguing the government failed to prove at trial a price-fixing conspiracy existed, that he joined the conspiracy, or that he made false statements.

Beaver, as operations manager of Beaver Materials Corp., was one of several Indianapolis-area ready-made concrete producers who collaborated in the beginning of the decade to fix the prices of concrete. Representatives from the five concrete companies met several times over the course of a few years in a horse barn in Fishers to discuss the falling market value of concrete. No one ever voted on the prices to charge customers, objected to the price-fixing, nor did anyone refuse to impose the limit. In fact, some even stated they would confront a company involved in the scheme if they did not follow the prices.

Beaver began attending the meetings in the place of another Beaver Materials employee and never objected to the scheme.

The FBI received a tip about the scheme and executed search warrants on the five companies in 2004. All the companies and those involved with the scheme except for Beaver and Beaver Materials admitted their roles in the conspiracy and entered into plea agreements. Four representatives from those companies agreed to help the government investigate and said they would answer truthfully at trial if called.

Beaver told the FBI agent that he never attended any meetings in the horse barn, did not know of another employee who attended the meetings, never saw the other companies except at an annual meeting, and denied any price-fixing. Beaver chose to go to trial and was indicted by a federal grand jury of participating in a price-fixing conspiracy and making false statements to a federal law enforcement agent. At trial, Beaver filed a motion for judgment of acquittal, challenging the evidence supporting his price-fixing conspiracy conviction; the District Court denied the motion.

Beaver appealed, arguing that the District Court erred by denying his motion for judgment of acquittal because the government failed to prove a conspiracy existed or that he participated. He also challenged his false-statements conviction by asserting the government failed to prove the lies he told the FBI agent were material as "a matter of law."

To be convicted of conspiracy under the Sherman Antitrust Act, the government only had to establish the concrete producers had a "tacit understanding based upon a long course of conduct" to limit their discounts and fix prices, wrote Judge Michael Kanne. The concrete makers held meetings to discuss fixing prices and discounts and no one disagreed with the proposals. The concrete producers also would enforce the agreement against those they believed were deviating from it. At trial, several concrete-makers involved in the conspiracy testified Beaver attended the meetings, participated in discussions to limit prices, and agreed to confront other members if they failed to conform. Even his own father, who was president of the company, testified he knew Beaver attended the meetings.

Beaver mischaracterized the issue of his false statements as "a matter of law," wrote Judge Kanne, and the materiality of false statements is a factual determination made by a jury. The federal appellate court rejected Beaver's assertion his false statements couldn't influence the FBI's investigation because his attorney sent a letter to the Department of Justice several days later to inform them that one of the employees lied during the investigation. However, the letter doesn't give the name of the employee, so it is not know whom the letter is about. Also, Beaver is incorrect in thinking he can avoid a conviction by correcting a false statement days after making it. His false statements could have hindered the FBI's investigation, so the appellate court sees no fault with the jury convicting Beaver of providing false statements.
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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  5. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

ADVERTISEMENT