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. Don't we have bigger issues to concern ourselves with?

  2. Anyone who takes the time to study disciplinary and bar admission cases in Indiana ... much of which is, as a matter of course and by intent, off the record, would have a very difficult time drawing lines that did not take into account things which are not supposed to matter, such as affiliations, associations, associates and the like. Justice Hoosier style is a far departure than what issues in most other parts of North America. (More like Central America, in fact.) See, e.g., http://www.theindianalawyer.com/indiana-attorney-illegally-practicing-in-florida-suspended-for-18-months/PARAMS/article/42200 When while the Indiana court system end the cruel practice of killing prophets of due process and those advocating for blind justice?

  3. Wouldn't this call for an investigation of Government corruption? Chief Justice Loretta Rush, wrote that the case warranted the high court’s review because the method the Indiana Court of Appeals used to reach its decision was “a significant departure from the law.” Specifically, David wrote that the appellate panel ruled after reweighing of the evidence, which is NOT permissible at the appellate level. **But yet, they look the other way while an innocent child was taken by a loving mother who did nothing wrong"

  4. Different rules for different folks....

  5. I would strongly suggest anyone seeking mediation check the experience of the mediator. There are retired judges who decide to become mediators. Their training and experience is in making rulings which is not the point of mediation.

ADVERTISEMENT