Evidence — propensity evidence

Listen to this article

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit

Criminal

Evidence — propensity evidence

In a fraud prosecution, it was not an abuse of discretion to admit evidence that the defendant converted $1.3 million of withdrawals into cash.

“First, the evidence was used for a purpose other than propensity; the government cross-examined Williams to call into question the accuracy of his analysis. Williams admitted that his analysis did not include the net $600,000 of withdrawals from the Equipment Source checking account. He also admitted that writing checks to cash or a currency exchange was an unusual business practice. The government questioned Williams to prove Marr’s intent to commit wire fraud, not to show that Marr committed tax fraud in the past and had done so again on this occasion.”

“Second, Williams’ testimony about the Equipment Source checks being converted to cash was extremely relevant. The government alleged that Marr used the Equipment Source bank accounts at Palos Bank to evade $328,881.89 in chargebacks and that the scheme took place from November 2001 to May 2003. Williams testified about the same Equipment Source bank accounts and described transactions that occurred at the same time as Marr’s wire fraud.”

Affirmed.

13-2204 U.S. v. Marr

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Castillo, J., Bauer, J.