By: Derek Hawkins//August 26, 2015//
Criminal
7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Officials: WOOD, Chief Judge, and EASTERBROOK and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges
Insufficiency of Evidence
No. 13-3747 United States of America v. Larry Pust
Evidence showing knowledge of conspiracies scope and objective not necessary where evidence exists to established acts consistent with intent to defraud.
“Pust argues that the government failed to show that a conspiracy existed between Anderson and himself because there was no evidence that Pust knew the general scope and objective of the conspiracy or that he had an intent to associate with the purported conspiracy. But we disagree. The same evidence used to establish that Pust acted with an intent to defraud—namely, the email correspondences—is circumstantial evidence from which the district court properly inferred the existence of a conspiracy and Pust’s involvement in that conspiracy. For example, emails show Pust and Anderson discussing where to move investor funds and what lies to tell investors about the mortgage industry when they inquired about the decline in monthly interest payments from the REI project. The emails provide compelling evidence of Pust’s knowledge of and involvement in the scheme. We agree with the government that Pust’s challenge to the admission of Anderson’s statements is simply a rehash of his challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, and for the same reasons we found the evidence sufficient to support the verdict, we reject his evidentiary challenge. See United States v. Yoon, 128 F.3d 515, 526 (7th Cir. 1997) (rejecting challenge to admission of co-conspirator statements under FRE 801(d)(2)(E) where essentially identical to sufficiency challenge). There was no error in admitting Anderson’s statements.”
Affirmed.