14 F.3d 605 (7th Cir. 1993), 93-1856, U.S. v. Goudy

Docket Nº:93-1856.
Citation:14 F.3d 605
Party Name:UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. David GOUDY, Defendant-Appellant.
Case Date:December 27, 1993
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

Page 605

14 F.3d 605 (7th Cir. 1993)

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,


David GOUDY, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 93-1856.

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit

December 27, 1993

Editorial Note:

This opinion appears in the Federal reporter in a table titled "Table of Decisions Without Reported Opinions". (See FI CTA7 Rule 53 regarding use of unpublished opinions)

Argued Nov. 30, 1993.

Rehearing Denied Feb. 7, 1994.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, No. 92 CR 131; Terence T. Evans, Chief Judge.



Before LAY [*], COFFEY, and ROVNER, Circuit Judges.


David Goudy was charged with four counts of bank fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2 and 1344 (1988), arising out of transactions at three Wisconsin banks. The jury found the defendant guilty on all four counts. On a post-trial motion the district court 1 determined that the testimony of one of the prosecution witnesses, Reginald Goodman, was so "riddled with inconsistencies and obvious falsehoods" that it could not reasonably be believed. On that basis, the district court entered a judgment of dismissal as to counts two and three. The court upheld Goudy's conviction on counts one and four. This appeal by Goudy followed. We affirm.

On appeal, Goudy asserts that inconsistencies and falsehoods pervaded the entire record. He argues that Goodman's testimony tainted all of the jury's determinations and that the other prosecution witnesses were as unreliable as Goodman. In particular, Goudy points to inconsistencies in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses who testified regarding counts one and four, and he urges that his conviction on these counts should be reversed.

The district court found the evidence as to counts one and four to be "solid." The court apparently did not think that Goodman's testimony, which related to counts two and three, pervaded the trial or prejudiced the jury's determinations on the other counts. We have reviewed the evidence and find that there exists substantial evidence for the jury reasonably to find the defendant guilty on counts one and four. As to count one, which concerned a scheme to defraud the First Financial Bank in January, 1991, the prosecution elicited testimony from Cynthia Ross. Ross had opened the account at First Financial Bank into...

To continue reading