728 F.2d 468 (10th Cir. 1984), 82-2477, United States v. Lightle

Docket Nº:82-2477.
Citation:728 F.2d 468
Party Name:UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Billy L. LIGHTLE, Defendant-Appellant.
Case Date:February 29, 1984
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 468

728 F.2d 468 (10th Cir. 1984)

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

Billy L. LIGHTLE, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 82-2477.

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit

February 29, 1984

Page 469

Robert K. McCune of Stipe, Gossett, Stipe, Harper, Estes, McCune & Parks, Oklahoma City, Okl., for defendant-appellant.

Susie Pritchett, Asst. U.S. Atty., Oklahoma City, Okl. (William S. Price, U.S. Atty., and James D. Bednar, Asst. U.S. Atty., Oklahoma City, Okl., on brief), for plaintiff-appellee.

Before McWILLIAMS and LOGAN, Circuit Judges, and COOK, District Judge. [*]

LOGAN, Circuit Judge.

Defendant Billy L. Lightle, a former county commissioner in Kingfisher County, Oklahoma, appeals his conviction on forty-four counts of mail fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1341, three counts of extortion, in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1951, and four counts of submitting false tax returns, in violation of 26 U.S.C. Sec. 7206(1). Defendant's assertions on appeal are that (1) the trial court erred in denying defendant's motion for acquittal because the mailings of county warrants were insufficiently related to the alleged scheme to defraud to provide the nexus for mail fraud convictions; (2) the trial court should have granted defendant's motion for change of venue because of excessive pretrial publicity; (3) the trial court should have granted defendant's motion in limine to suppress certain testimony and evidence of crimes not charged; and (4) the trial court erred in allowing the introduction of evidence concerning the illegal activities of two other Kingfisher County commissioners. We affirm.

Lightle's indictment resulted from a three-year investigation of corrupt practices of Oklahoma county commissioners. Lightle was charged with devising a scheme to defraud the citizens of Kingfisher County by depriving them of their right to have county business conducted free from corruption and undue influence. Specifically, Lightle was convicted for receiving kickbacks in return for placing orders for road and bridge building materials and supplies with certain vendors.

Page 470

I

Lightle argues that the trial court should have granted his motion for acquittal at the conclusion of the evidence because the government failed to show that the mailings in this case were in furtherance of a scheme to defraud. Lightle contends that although the evidence...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP