FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
July 22, 2008
PUBLISH Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
TENTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v. No. 07-1148
LINDA CARNAGIE and STAFFORD
A. HILAIRE,
Defendants - Appellees.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
(D. Ct. No. 04-CR-00463-MSK)
Patricia W. Davies, Assistant United States Attorney (Troy A. Eid, United States
Attorney, and Martha A. Paluch, Assistant United States Attorney, with her on the
briefs), Office of the United States Attorney for the District of Colorado, Denver,
Colorado, appearing for Appellant.
Patrick D. Butler, Lamm & Butler, LLC, Louisville, Colorado, appearing for
Appellee Carnagie.
Peter Menges, The Law Office of Peter D. Menges, P.C., Denver, Colorado,
appearing for Appellee Hilaire.
Before HENRY, Chief Circuit Judge, TACHA, and BRISCOE, Circuit Judges.
TACHA, Circuit Judge.
Following a jury trial, Defendants-Appellees Linda Carnagie and Stafford
Hilaire were found guilty of conspiracy to defraud the United States, see 18
U.S.C. § 371, and conspiracy to commit money laundering, see 18 U.S.C. §
1956(a)(1)(A)(i), (h). The district court granted the defendants’ motion for
judgment of acquittal, holding that the evidence adduced at trial failed to prove
the conspiracies as charged and, instead, proved a number of smaller, separate
conspiracies. The government appeals. We exercise jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291 and REVERSE and REMAND.
I. BACKGROUND
A. Factual History
In reciting the facts of this case, we view the evidence in the light most
favorable to the jury’s verdict. See United States v. Ortiz, 427 F.3d 1278, 1281
(10th Cir. 2005). In 1997, Roderick Wesson and Warren Williams registered a
sham company, W & W Enterprises, with the State of Colorado in order to use the
company’s name to generate false financial documents—mainly, W-2s and pay
stubs. For a fee, Mr. Wesson and Mr. Williams would provide that false
documentation, along with fake social security numbers, to persons with bad or no
credit to help them purchase a home. 1 The goal was to help unqualified borrowers
obtain home loans insured by the Federal Housing Administration (“FHA”) by
1
Although the record is unclear as to when they were established, Mr.
Wesson and Mr. Williams also used two other fictitious businesses (Comp
Systems and Neighborstat Incorporated) to create fake W-2s and pay stubs.
-2-
using the false financial information and documents.
By way of background, the FHA is a branch of the Department of Housing
and Urban Development (“HUD”) that insures certain loans for single-family
homes. If a loan applicant qualifies for FHA insurance, HUD insures the lender
against any loss it may incur in the event of foreclosure. FHA-insured loans also
require a lower down payment and a less stringent debt-to-income ratio than non-
FHA-insured loans. HUD must approve a lender before it can offer FHA-insured
loans. When processing a particular loan to determine whether the FHA will
insure it, an approved lender requests an FHA case number by entering the
lender’s institutional ID and password on an FHA website. The lender also enters
various information pertaining to the home buyer’s credit history and ability to
make payment. The loan officer is responsible for collecting supporting
documentation from the borrower and verifying the accuracy of this information
through third parties.
Mr. Williams and Mr. Wesson found it more efficient and profitable,
because they could charge kickbacks, to work with cooperating real estate agents
and loan officers when completing these fraudulent loan applications. The details
of their scheme can be summarized as follows. Document makers (typically Mr.
Williams or Mr. Wesson) or real estate agents would find clients and provide
them with false income documents and social security numbers. The loan officer
would help the client obtain an FHA-insured loan based on this false information,
-3-
and the real estate agent and loan officer would each give twenty percent of their
earnings on the sale of the property and the loan closing to the document maker.
Mr. Williams and Mr. Wesson completed fraudulent loan transactions together
from 1997 until 2000. In 2000, Mr. Wesson and Mr. Williams parted ways and
began competing for prospective home buyers. Mr. Wesson and Mr. Williams
often worked on different transactions with different loan officers and real estate
agents, many of whom did not know the identity of the other real estate agents
and loan officers involved in their scheme.
1. Transactions Involving Ms. Carnagie
In October 1999, Ms. Carnagie paid Mr. Wesson $500 for a false social
security number and false income and employment documents so she could obtain
an FHA-insured loan to purchase her own home. For this transaction, Nina
Cameron was the loan officer and Toni Myles was the real estate agent.
After using the false documents to obtain her own home loan, Ms.
Carnagie, employed as a loan officer at Highlands Mortgage, began to work with
Mr. Wesson and others to fraudulently obtain FHA loans for home buyers. For
the fraudulent transactions in which Ms. Carnagie was involved, Mr. Wesson was
typically the document maker and either Ms. Myles or Odie Webster was the real
estate agent. Ms. Carnagie would advise Mr. Wesson of the amount of false
income that should be reported to reach the requisite debt-to-income ratio. In
addition, because she was using fake social security numbers that often had no
-4-
credit history, Ms. Carnagie would occasionally have to create false credit letters
to obtain an FHA loan. Once the false financial documents were created and the
buyer selected a home, Ms. Carnagie would provide the information to someone
at Highlands Mortgage who would enter it into the FHA system. After the FHA
approved the loan and Ms. Carnagie closed on the home, she would pay Mr.
Wesson twenty percent of the commission she received from the sale.
Between February and September 2000, Ms. Carnagie helped procure
approximately sixteen loans that were insured by the FHA based on fraudulent
information. Later the same year, Highland Mortgage discovered the fraudulent
nature of many of her loan transactions and took steps that prevented her from
submitting any further loan applications through Highland Mortgage. Ms.
Carnagie did not complete any of these transactions with Mr. Hilaire (her
codefendant), or even know him prior to these proceedings, and nothing in the
record indicates she knew or had any dealings with Mr. Williams. 2
2. Transactions Involving Trenson Byrd
For his part, Mr. Williams had been working with (among others) Linda
Edwards, a real estate agent with Affable Realty. After completing several
fraudulent transactions with her, Mr. Williams expressed his interest in obtaining
2
Although Ms. Carnagie’s transactions occurred before Mr. Williams and
Mr. Wesson became direct competitors, Mr. Williams was not present when Mr.
Wesson met with Ms. Carnagie and was not aware of the nature of their
arrangement. He further testified that he was not a direct participant in these
transactions.
-5-
a position as a loan officer and thus expanding his role beyond that of a document
maker. She set up an appointment for him with Trenson Byrd, the owner of Mid
America Mortgage and the third charged coconspirator that proceeded to trial
with the defendants. Around September 1999, Mr. Byrd, at Ms. Edwards’s
recommendation, hired Mr. Williams as a loan officer at Mid America Mortgage.
While at Mid America, Mr. Williams created false income documents and social
security numbers for buyers and worked with Ms. Edwards to submit them to
HUD.
In November 1999, Mr. Byrd noticed an abnormally high number of loan
applicants with supporting documentation that listed the same employer, an entity
called Neighborstat, which was one of Mr. Williams’s and Mr. Wesson’s
fictitious companies. Mr. Byrd reported his finding to HUD and instructed his
staff that Mid America would no longer process loans for Neighborstat
employees. Mr. Williams subsequently left Mid America after just a couple
months and worked at several other mortgage companies before acquiring a
position at Catalina Century Mortgage. Mr. Byrd claimed he did not work with or
know Mr. Hilaire or Ms. Carnagie prior to being charged in this case and had
never heard of Mr. Wesson.
3. Transactions Involving Mr. Hilaire
Mr. Hilaire was a loan officer and the vice president of Catalina Century
-6-
Mortgage at the time Mr. Williams applied for a position. After interviewing him
and receiving a recommendation from Ms. Edwards, Mr. Hilaire hired Mr.
Williams as a loan officer in the fall of 2000. Because Catalina Century
Mortgage was not approved to offer FHA-insured loans, it provided them through
Rocky Mountain Mortgage Specialists, an affiliated company that had FHA
approval.
Between November 2000 and May 2001, Mr. Hilaire was involved in
thirteen transactions in which fraudulent information was submitted in order to
obtain FHA-insured loans. Ms. Edwards was typically the real estate agent and
would refer potential buyers to Mr. Hilaire for loan assistance. Several of the
buyers testified that, after Ms. Edwards’s referral, they met with Mr. Hilaire and
discussed using false social security numbers and false documents to obtain a
loan. In almost all these transactions, Mr. Williams created the false documents
submitted to HUD. Mr. Williams also testified that Mr. Hilaire inquired as to
how Mr. Williams came up with his false income figures and that he witnessed
Mr. Hilaire creating false pay stubs.
At some point in 2001, Rocky Mountain Mortgage Specialists, the FHA-
approved lender that Mr. Hilaire used to obtain FHA-insured loans, became
concerned about some of the files Mr. Hilaire had submitted. It hired an
investigator to look into the matter and eventually terminated its relationship with
Catalina Century Mortgage. Mr. Hilaire did not complete any transactions with
-7-
Mr. Byrd and had not heard of Ms. Carnagie or Mr. Wesson prior to being
charged in this case.
B. History of the Case
In September 2001, HUD learned of the fraud after a quality review found
loans submitted by a loan officer, Ms. Cameron, were obtained using false social
security numbers and W-2s. Further examination revealed that many other
transactions involved the same employers (the fake companies) and many of the
same real estate agents and loan officers. In February 2004, following the initial
investigation, Mr. Wesson, Mr. Williams, and various other alleged
coconspirators were separately charged as a result of their involvement in the
scheme. Mr. Wesson and Mr. Williams pleaded guilty to conspiracy charges and
entered cooperation plea agreements with the government. Due in part to the
cooperation of many of those initially charged, a second superseding indictment
was presented to the grand jury in February 2005.
The grand jury indicted Ms. Carnagie, Mr. Hilaire, and Mr. Byrd on
charges of conspiracy to defraud the United States in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371
(Count 1) and conspiracy to commit money laundering in violation of 18 U.S.C. §
1956(a)(1)(A)(I), (h) (Count 41). Five other coconspirators were charged in
Count 1 and three others in Count 41, but only Ms. Carnagie, Mr. Hilaire, and Mr.
-8-
Byrd proceeded to trial. 3 In addition to the conspiracy charges, Ms. Carnagie and
Mr. Hilaire were charged with various other counts of wire fraud, making or using
a false document, and using a false social security number.
After the close of the government’s evidence at trial, Ms. Carnagie and Mr.
Hilaire moved for judgment of acquittal, arguing that the evidence did not
establish the existence of the large conspiracies charged in Counts 1 and 41, but
proved only multiple, smaller conspiracies. The district court took the motions
under advisement. The jury then returned its verdict, finding Ms. Carnagie and
Mr. Hilaire guilty on both conspiracy charges. Ms. Carnagie was also found
guilty on several of the wire fraud and false document counts. The jury acquitted
Mr. Hilaire of all the individual counts and acquitted Mr. Byrd of the conspiracy
counts. Ms. Carnagie and Mr. Hilaire moved again for judgment of acquittal,
making the same arguments they had previously made and contending that a fatal
variance occurred between the single, broad conspiracies charged in Counts 1 and
41 and the multiple, smaller conspiracies proven at trial. The district court
granted the motion, concluding the government failed to establish the requisite
interdependence among the alleged members of the fraud and money laundering
3
Sandra Lindsey, a home buyer charged with a single count of making or
using a false document, was tried with the defendants and found guilty. The
second superseding indictment also charged thirty people in addition to the four
that proceeded to trial. Some of the charges were dismissed, some defendants
entered guilty pleas, and the rest—including alleged coconspirators Ms. Edwards,
Emmitt Cotton, and LaDonna Mullins—are being tried separately.
-9-
conspiracies as charged. The government now appeals.
II. DISCUSSION
The government argues that there was no variance between the conspiracies
charged and the evidence adduced at trial, and even if a variance occurred, it was
not prejudicial. Thus, we have two questions to consider on appeal: (1) did the
evidence support the overall conspiracies charged, or did a variance occur; and
(2) if a variance occurred, was it substantially prejudicial to the defendants? See
United States v. Windrix, 405 F.3d 1146, 1153 (10th Cir. 2005).
A. Variance
A variance arises when an indictment charges a single conspiracy but the
evidence presented at trial proves only the existence of multiple conspiracies. See
United States v. Ailsworth, 138 F.3d 843, 848 (10th Cir. 1998). In determining
whether a variance occurred that would support the district court’s grant of
judgment of acquittal, we view the evidence and draw all reasonable inferences
therefrom in the light most favorable to the government, asking whether a
reasonable jury could have found Ms. Carnagie and Mr. Hilaire guilty of the
charged conspiracies beyond a reasonable doubt. See United States v.
Montgomery, 468 F.3d 715, 719 (10th Cir. 2006); Ailsworth, 138 F.3d at 846; see
also United States v. Griffin, 493 F.3d 856, 862 (7th Cir. 2007) (“We treat a
conspiracy variance claim as an attack on the sufficiency of the evidence
supporting the jury’s finding that each defendant was a member of the same
-10-
conspiracy.”).
In this case, the government charged the defendants with conspiring to
defraud the United States (Count 1) and conspiring to commit money laundering
(Count 41). Count 1 of the second superseding indictment charged the defendants
as follows:
From on or about February 2, 1999, and continuing thereafter until
on or about July 26, 2004 . . . [Ms. Carnagie, Ms. Cameron, Ms.
Edwards, Ms. Mullins, Mr. Byrd, Mr. Cotton, Mr. Hilaire, and Mr.
Webster] did conspire together and with others both known and
unknown to the Grand Jury . . . to commit offenses against the
United States, that is, [making or using a false writing or document]
and [using a false social security number].
Count 41, the money laundering conspiracy count, centered on the
kickbacks paid by various loan officers and real estate agents after a deal
closed. It alleged:
Beginning on or about February 2, 1999, and continuing through
December 30, 2002 . . . [Ms. Edwards, Ms. Carnagie, Mr. Byrd, Mr.
Hilaire, and Mr. Cotton] conspired and agreed together and with each
other, and with other persons both known and unknown to the Grand
Jury, to conduct and attempt to conduct financial transactions,
knowing that the property involved in the said financial transactions
represented the proceeds of some form of unlawful activity, namely,
proceeds from schemes to commit wire fraud, with the intent to
promote the carrying on of the specified unlawful activity, namely
the wire fraud.
In order to prove the defendants are guilty of these conspiracies, the
government had to show “(1) that two or more persons agreed to violate the law
[defrauding the United States and committing money laundering], (2) that the
-11-
defendant[s] knew at least the essential objectives of the conspiracy, . . . (3) that
the defendant[s] knowingly and voluntarily became a part of it, and (4) that the
alleged coconspirators were interdependent.” United States v. Sells, 477 F.3d
1226, 1235 (10th Cir. 2007) (quotations omitted). Of particular importance here
is whether the coconspirators were interdependent. Interdependence requires that
a defendant’s actions “facilitate the endeavors of other alleged coconspirators or
facilitate the venture as a whole.” United States v. Evans, 970 F.2d 663, 670
(10th Cir. 1992) (quotation and alterations omitted). “What is needed is proof
that [the coconspirators] intended to act together for their shared mutual benefit
within the scope of the conspiracy charged.” Id. at 671.
The government’s theory at trial was that Mr. Wesson and Mr. Williams
were the central figures in a single scheme that encompassed both of the
conspiracies charged in the superseding indictment. The government
characterized that scheme as its own “wheel” conspiracy with Mr. Williams and
Mr. Wesson at the hub and the various loan officers and real estate agents
constituting the spokes. In their motions for judgment of acquittal, the defendants
argued that the proof at trial was insufficient to prove large, global conspiracies
and instead proved several smaller conspiracies, which were all independent of
each other. These smaller conspiracies included one with Mr. Wesson at the
center, with Ms. Carnagie and certain real estate agents as the spokes, and one
with Mr. Williams at the center, with Mr. Hilaire and other real estate agents as
-12-
the spokes. We agree with the district court and the defendants that this is what
the evidence established.
The government contends that it established interdependence by presenting
evidence of a unified and shared objective of closing “as many fraudulent FHA
loans as possible.” According to the government, this shared objective was the
rim connecting the various loan officers and real estate agents who participated
with Mr. Wesson or Mr. Williams in otherwise unrelated transactions. 4 See
United States v. Daily, 921 F.2d 994, 1007 (10th Cir. 1990) (“[T]he focal point of
the [interdependence] analysis is whether the alleged co-conspirators were united
in a common unlawful goal or purpose.”), overruled on other grounds by United
States v. Gaudin, 515 U.S. 506 (1995). This common goal, however, is not by
itself enough to establish interdependence: “What is required is a shared, single
criminal objective, not just similar or parallel objectives between similarly
4
The district court suggested that the government’s contention at trial that
all the defendants were involved in a single, overarching scheme was inconsistent
with the second superseding indictment, which charged two conspiracies. As the
government explained, and as the defendants appeared to recognize, however, the
indictment charged the defendants with conspiring together to commit two
different substantive offenses, defrauding the United States and money
laundering, rather than separately charging smaller conspiracies with the same
two offenses. The government’s assertion at trial that the rim connecting the
various players was the objective of closing as many FHA loans as possible is not
“a completely different theory” from that contained in the indictment; rather, it
was merely the government’s explanation for how the various players were
interconnected and could thus be charged together for their involvement in a
single criminal enterprise (involving two criminal offenses), as opposed to
separate and distinct ones.
-13-
situated people.” Evans, 970 F.2d at 671. Although the Wesson-Carnagie group
and the Williams-Hilaire group had the same general objective—to profit from
submitting fraudulent FHA loans—it does not necessarily mean that the separate
groups were interdependent.
To begin, Mr. Hilaire did not even know Ms. Carnagie or Mr. Wesson,
much less interact with them. Likewise, Ms. Carnagie never completed a
transaction with Mr. Williams, and she did not know Mr. Hilaire. Moreover, the
record does not show that, besides those individuals with whom they completed
transactions, Ms. Carnagie or Mr. Hilaire knew about other loan officers and real
estate agents with whom Mr. Wesson and Mr. Williams were completing similar
transactions. We recognize that the government “does not have to show the
defendant knew all the details or all the members of a conspiracy.” United States
v. Yehling, 456 F.3d 1236, 1240 (10th Cir. 2006). It must prove, however, that
Ms. Carnagie and Mr. Hilaire knowingly agreed to participate in a conspiracy of
the magnitude alleged in the indictment—not just that they knowingly agreed to
participate in a conspiracy. 5
5
In this way, we agree with the district court’s conclusion that there is a
difference in the proof necessary to establish interdependence in a drug
conspiracy from that necessary to link parallel financial transactions such as the
ones in this case. As the district court reasoned, because the manufacture, sale,
and use of drugs is illegal, essentially every aspect of the drug distribution
business is illegal. Each participant is presumptively aware of the illegal nature
of the activity and of the existence of the illegal venture. As a result, we have
said that “where large quantities of narcotics are being distributed, each major
(continued...)
-14-
In addition, the Williams-Hilaire transactions in no way benefitted from or
depended upon the success of the Wesson-Carnagie transactions, and vice versa.
See id. at 1241 (“[E]ach coconspirator’s actions must facilitate the endeavors of
other alleged coconspirators or facilitate the venture as a whole.” (quotation
omitted)); Daily, 921 F.2d at 1007 (“[O]f principal concern is whether the
activities of alleged co-conspirators in one aspect of the charged scheme were
necessary or advantageous to the success of the activities of co-conspirators in
another aspect of the charged scheme, or the success of the venture as a whole.”).
The different groups engaged in similar transactions for similar reasons, but there
was no showing of mutual dependence between them. The Wesson-Carnagie
group was completely dissolved by the time Mr. Hilaire started working with Mr.
Williams, and at the time Mr. Hilaire allegedly participated in fraudulent
5
(...continued)
buyer may be presumed to know that he is part of a wide-ranging venture, the
success of which depends on performance by others whose identity he may not
even know,” and “evidence that a defendant is a major supplier of drugs is
sufficient to infer knowledge of the broader conspiracy.” United States v. Small,
423 F.3d 1164, 1183 (10th Cir. 2005). In other words, interdependence in a drug
conspiracy may stem from the illegal nature of the drug trade itself.
In contrast, selling real estate and obtaining loans for those sales is
generally lawful. Unlawful activity, however, may occur as part of those
otherwise lawful transactions—in this case, for example, the use of false
documents or social security numbers to secure financing. In this situation,
because the underlying transaction is generally lawful, one cannot infer an illegal
common purpose in the same way that a common purpose could be found in a
drug conspiracy. Instead, interdependence must be proved more precisely. The
government must do more than prove that a defendant participated in a real estate
transaction involving false documentation to demonstrate interdependence; it
must show that each defendant’s actions benefitted the common venture.
-15-
transactions, Mr. Williams and Mr. Wesson were in direct competition for
prospective borrowers. See United States v. Harrison, 942 F.2d 751, 757 (10th
Cir. 1991) (stating that because two drug suppliers were in direct competition
with each other, their activities “were not advantageous to the success of other
sources nor were they essential and integral steps toward the realization of a
common illicit goal” (quotations omitted)). Any success realized by the
Williams-Hilaire group, therefore, decreased the pool of potential borrowers for
Mr. Wesson.
In Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U.S. 750, 754–55 (1946), several groups
of defendants submitted fraudulent loans, none of which had any connection to
the other except that each dealt independently with the same agent. The Court
made clear that under those circumstances there must be some overlap among the
spokes to establish interdependence. Therefore, the mere fact that Ms. Carnagie
and Mr. Hilaire worked with Mr. Wesson and Mr. Williams, who happened to be
connected to each other and constituted the hub of the wheel, does not establish
interdependence. See id. (holding that there was no connection among “separate
spokes meeting at a common center” and thus no single conspiracy without “the
rim of the wheel to enclose the spokes”); Evans, 970 F.2d at 670 (“[A] single
conspiracy does not exist solely because many individuals deal with a common
central player; they must be interconnected in some way.”).
For all these reasons, we cannot conclude that the evidence supports broad
-16-
conspiracies to defraud the United States and to launder money whereby Ms.
Carnagie and Mr. Hilaire acted “together” for their “shared mutual benefit.”
Accordingly, we conclude that Ms. Carnagie and Mr. Hilaire were not
interdependent coconspirators, and thus, the government failed to prove the two
widespread conspiracies charged in the indictment.
B. Prejudice
A variance between the indictment and the proof is only reversible error,
however, if it is prejudicial—that is, if it “affects ‘the substantial rights of the
accused.’” United States v. Edwards, 69 F.3d 419, 433 (10th Cir. 1995) (quoting
Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 78, 82 (1935)). We review de novo the
question of whether a variance was prejudicial. United States v. Williamson, 53
F.3d 1500, 1512 (10th Cir. 1995). The defendants contend that the presentation
of evidence concerning the separate conspiracies in this case adversely affected
their substantial rights because: (1) the second superseding indictment did not put
them on adequate notice of the charges brought against them; and (2) they were
found guilty based on evidence introduced against other alleged coconspirators,
which the jury imputed to the defendants.
1. Notice
A variance can prejudice a defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to notice of
the charges against him if he “could not have anticipated from the allegations in
the indictment what the evidence would be at trial.” United States v. Stoner, 98
-17-
F.3d 527, 536 (10th Cir. 1996). Here, we fail to see how the defendants can claim
that there was “simply no way to anticipate” what evidence would be offered
against them at trial. The conspiracy charges in the indictment recited every
transaction that the government was relying on to support its case.
Moreover, even though the evidence did not establish two large
conspiracies, it was clearly sufficient to prove that Ms. Carnagie conspired with
Mr. Wesson and the various real estate agents with whom she completed
transactions, as well as that Mr. Hilaire conspired with Mr. Williams and other
real estate agents. When a narrower scheme than the one alleged is fully included
within the indictment and proved, we have repeatedly held that a defendant’s
substantial rights are not prejudiced. See Windrix, 405 F.3d at 1154 (“A
defendant’s substantial rights are not prejudiced merely because the defendant is
convicted upon evidence which tends to show a narrower scheme than that
contained in the indictment, provided that the narrower scheme is fully included
within the indictment.”); Ailsworth, 138 F.3d at 849 (holding that while evidence
proving conspiracy was narrower than the conspiracy alleged in the indictment,
the variance was not fatal because the “government did not offer proof of new
facts or new offenses not alleged in the indictment”). Here, all the acts that made
up the distinct conspiracies were set out in the indictment (the government did not
introduce any new evidence at trial), and the defendants knew the transactions
were “part and parcel” of the overall conspiracies alleged in Counts 1 and 41. See
-18-
Ailsworth, 138 F.3d at 850. Because the defendants could anticipate the trial
evidence, they cannot reasonably contend they were not given adequate notice of
the charges against them.
2. Guilt Transference
A variance can also prejudice a defendant’s substantial rights “if the
evidence adduced against co-conspirators involved in separate conspiracies was
more likely than not imputed to the defendant by the jury in its determination of
the defendant’s guilt.” Windrix, 405 F.3d at 1154 (citation and alteration
omitted); see also Harrison, 942 F.2d at 758 (noting that a variance is
substantially prejudicial if “the evidence adduced against the co-conspirators
involved was more likely than not imputed to the defendant by the jury in its
determination of the defendant’s guilt” (quotation omitted)).
In determining whether there was a “prejudicial spillover effect” from
evidence pertaining to conspiracies not involving the defendant, we generally
focus on three questions:
“First, whether the proliferation of separate crimes or conspiracies
presented in the case impaired the jury’s ability to segregate each
individual [conspirator’s] actions and the evidence associated with [her or]
his participation; Second, whether confusion among members of the jury
concerning the legal limitations on the use of certain evidence resulted
from the variance; and, Third, the strength or weakness of the evidence
underlying the jury’s conviction.”
Id. (quoting United States v. Morris, 623 F.2d 145, 149 (10th Cir. 1980))
(alterations in original). We address each in turn.
-19-
In Kotteakos, the Supreme Court emphasized that “[n]umbers are vitally
important in trial, especially in criminal matters.” 328 U.S. at 772. The
defendants argue that here, as in Kotteakos, the number of defendants indicted
and tried and number of conspiracies proven increased the probability that
prejudice would result. In Kotteakos, thirty-two persons were indicted for
conspiracy, nineteen defendants were tried together, thirteen names were
submitted to the jury, and at least eight separate conspiracies were proven. Id. at
753; cf. Berger, 295 U.S. at 80, 84 (holding no prejudice when four defendants
were tried for single conspiracy and two separate conspiracies proved). Here,
while thirty-four persons were indicted (including eight persons for the
conspiracy alleged in Count 1 and six persons for the conspiracy alleged in Count
41), only three defendants charged with conspiracy were tried together, and at
most, three conspiracies were proven. 6 While this is more than in Berger, the
number of defendants tried and conspiracies proven do not reach the magnitude of
Kotteakos, and thus the risk of prejudice is not as great. See Kotteakos, 328 U.S.
at 774 (expressing no opinion on “what marks the limit,” but making clear that it
exists somewhere between Berger and Kotteakos). Moreover, in addition to the
6
The evidence in this case was sufficient to establish one conspiracy
involving Mr. Wesson, Ms. Carnagie, and several real estate agents (e.g., Ms.
Myles, Ms. Webster); one conspiracy involving Mr. Williams, Mr. Hilaire, and
real estate agents (e.g., Ms. Edwards); and, at least arguably, one involving Mr.
Williams, Mr. Byrd, and various real estate agents. Of course, the jury acquitted
Mr. Byrd of the conspiracy charges, and we do not call that verdict into question
here.
-20-
fact that this case involves fewer defendants and conspiracies, several other
factors militate against concluding that the evidence impaired the jury’s ability to
distinguish among separate conspiracies. 7
We note at the outset that the defendants have not identified any specific
instances of evidentiary spillover. They merely allege that they were exposed to a
general risk of guilt transference from the evidence presented against other
coconspirators involved in separate conspiracies. The evidence in this case,
however, was “not so intricate as to render the jury unable to segregate the
evidence associated with each defendant’s individual actions.” See Edwards, 69
F.3d at 433.
First, the evidence offered tended to prove the existence of three separate
and distinct conspiracies: Wesson-Carnagie, Williams-Byrd, and Williams-
Hilaire. While the jury heard evidence of many fraudulent transactions, the
evidence implicating the defendants in their respective conspiracies was relatively
simple. It consisted of testimony concerning the defendants’ involvement, as well
as loan documentation for each transaction. All three defendants worked for
different lenders on unrelated transactions involving different home and they did
not even know each other. Under these circumstances, the jury could easily have
7
We express no opinion as to whether any of these factors, taken by
themselves, would be sufficient to find that no prejudice occurred. Taken
together, however, we are confident that the defendants’ substantial rights were
not affected.
-21-
separated the evidence associated with Ms. Carnagie, Mr. Hilaire, and Mr. Byrd.
Second, all the transactions not involving Ms. Carnagie and Mr. Hilaire
were of the exact same character as the transactions in which they allegedly
participated. We have held that such a similarity between different transactions
cuts against a finding of substantial prejudice. See Morris, 623 F.2d at 150 (“The
similarity of the challenged transactions not involving [the defendant] directly
militates against our finding significant prejudice.”); see also United States v.
Levine, 569 F.2d 1175, 1177 (1st Cir. 1978) (“[T]he prejudice should be
minimized by the fact that those transactions not directly involving appellant were
of the same character as the ones that did involve him.”). In addition, Mr. Byrd,
Ms. Carnagie, and Mr. Hilaire were alleged to have played the same role—that of
loan officer—and were “charged with conduct of approximately equal
culpability.” See United States v. Caver, 470 F.3d 220, 237 (6th Cir. 2006).
Thus, as in Caver, “this was not a case where a defendant with a relatively minor
role was forced to endure an extended trial where the bulk of the evidence did not
pertain to him.” Id.
Finally, the jury actually demonstrated that it could compartmentalize the
evidence associated with each defendant and not transfer the guilt of some alleged
coconspirators to all because it acquitted Mr. Hilaire of the underlying counts and
acquitted Mr. Byrd of the conspiracy. See Windrix, 405 F.3d at 1155 (“The jury’s
capacity to distinguish among the codefendants is demonstrated by its acquittal of
-22-
[a] codefendant . . . on all counts at the very trial at which Defendants were
convicted.”).
Next, we consider “whether confusion among members of the jury
concerning the legal limitations on the use of certain evidence resulted from the
variance.” Mr. Hilaire contends that the jury’s verdicts were “inconsistent” and
“illogical” because he was acquitted of the wire fraud counts but found guilty of
the conspiracy counts. But the government did not have to prove that he
committed an overt act, so long as it proved he conspired with Mr. Williams and
other real estate agents and one of them committed an overt act in furtherance of
the conspiracy. See United States v. Pursley, 474 F.3d 757, 768 (10th Cir. 2007);
see also United States v. Kendall, 766 F.2d 1426, 1431 (10th Cir. 1985) (“The
conspiracy is complete when one or more of the conspirators knowingly commit
an act in furtherance of the object of the agreement.” (quotation omitted)).
Further, even though the government only had to prove that one of the members
committed an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy, it presented evidence of
overt acts committed by Mr. Hilaire himself; for example, Mr. Williams testified
that he witnessed Mr. Hilaire creating false pay stubs.
The limiting instruction given by the district court also minimized any
possible prejudice. See Edwards, 69 F.3d at 433. The court specifically
instructed the jury:
You must independently consider whether the Government has
-23-
proven the guilt of each defendant on each offense charged. This
means that you must consider the evidence as to each offense
charged against a defendant, without considering the evidence
pertaining to the other offenses charged against that defendant.
Similarly, you must consider the evidence against each defendant,
separately. Your verdict as to one defendant should not influence
your verdict as to any other.
As we generally assume that jurors follow the judge’s instructions, see United
States v. Chanthadara, 230 F.3d 1237, 1251 (10th Cir. 2000), we conclude that
there was no prejudice from jury confusion.
Finally, the jury heard ample evidence to convict both Ms. Carnagie and
Mr. Hilaire of the smaller, separate conspiracies. Mr. Wesson and Mr. Williams
testified extensively concerning Ms. Carnagie’s and Mr. Hilaire’s involvement
and knowledge of the scheme, and their testimony was corroborated by home
buyers and real estate agents. 8
In sum, the defendants have failed to demonstrate that the indictment did
not give them adequate notice of the crimes charged or that the jury imputed to
them evidence of the conspiracies that did not involve them. We conclude that if
the variance influenced the jury, it “had but very slight effect.” See Kotteakos,
328 U.S. at 764. Accordingly, even though a variance occurred, the defendants
did not suffer substantial prejudice as a result.
8
Mr. Hilaire also raises a sufficiency of the evidence challenge as to the
smaller conspiracy, but as we have stated, the evidence was more than sufficient
to permit a finding that he knowingly agreed to join a conspiracy with Mr.
Williams. Ms. Carnagie does not make a similar argument.
-24-
III. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, we REVERSE and REMAND for further
proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
-25-
07-1148, United States v. Carnegie, et al.
HENRY, Chief Judge, concurring:
I join the majority’s careful opinion but write separately to note the
closeness of this case. In United States v. Evans, 970 F.3d 663, 674 (10th Cir.
1992), we observed, “The tactic of charging many defendants with a single
massive conspiracy is fraught with the potential for abuse.” Here, apparently
undaunted by a paucity of evidence supporting its theory that a single, massive
wheel conspiracy existed, the government chose to prosecute Ms. Carnagie and
Mr. Hilaire together. In my view, the government’s presentation of evidence at
trial came dangerously close to Evans’s concern that the jury would be “so
overwhelmed with evidence of wrongdoing by other alleged coconspirators that it
[would] fail to differentiate among particular defendants.” Id.
However, I am persuaded by the majority opinion’s conclusion that Ms.
Carnagie and Mr. Hilaire were not substantially prejudiced by the joint
prosecution. In particular, I agree that they were adequately informed of the
charges against them. See United States v. Windrix, 405 F.3d 1146, 1154 (10th
Cir. 2005) (“A defendant’s substantial rights are not prejudiced merely because
the defendant is convicted upon evidence which tends to show a narrower scheme
than that contained in the indictment, provided that the narrower scheme is fully
included within the indictment.”). Moreover, my review of the record does not
lead me to conclude that guilt was more likely than not imputed from one
defendant to another. See id. (observing that substantial prejudice has occurred
“if the evidence adduced against co-conspirators involved in separate conspiracies
was more likely than not imputed to the defendant by the jury in its determination
of the defendant’s guilt”) (quoting United States v. Harrison, 942 F.2d 751, 758
(10th Cir. 1991) (internal quotation marks omitted). Rather, the jury was
presented with evidence that tended to show Ms. Carnagie and Mr. Hilaire’s
involvement in smaller conspiracies, which were distinct from the massive
conspiracy alleged, and the district court properly instructed the jury to separately
consider the evidence against each defendant. Thus, I concur.
-2-