United States v. Corrigan
| Decision Date | 15 September 2016 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 13-CR-915 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. WILLIAM D. CORRIGAN, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois |
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Defendant William D. Corrigan ("Defendant") was charged with four counts of wire fraud, 18 U.S.C. § 1343, in connection with his alleged scheme to solicit investments in his company, Embedded Control Systems ("ECS"), by falsely representing to two investors that their money was needed and would be used for health insurance for ECS employees. See [80] (Amended Indictment). Defendant voluntarily waived his right to a jury trial [81] and elected to proceed with a bench trial, which began on December 15, 2015 and concluded on December 17, 2015. See [83], [84], [85]. Prior to the bench trial, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss on sovereign immunity grounds [18], a motion to dismiss due to "Declaration of Immunity Mandate" [27], and a motion to dismiss Counts 2, 3, and 4 of the Indictment [75], and the Government filed a motion in limine [68]. The Court reserved ruling on these motions until after trial. Following trial, Defendant also filed two motions for leave to file an over-size post-trial brief [94], [96], a motion to file a corrected table of contents to Defendant's post-trial brief [95], and a motion for leave to file a reply brief in support of his motion to dismiss [98].
For the reasons explained in Section I below, the Court denies Defendant's motion to dismiss on sovereign immunity grounds [18] and motion to dismiss due to "Declaration of Immunity Mandate" [27]; grants Defendant's motion for leave to file a reply in support of his motion to dismiss Counts 2, 3, and 4 of the Indictment [98]; denies Defendant's motion to dismiss Counts 2, 3, and 4 of the Indictment [75]; grants the Government's motion in limine [68]; grants Defendant's first-filed motion for leave to file an over-size post-trial brief [94]; denies as moot Defendant's duplicative motion for leave to file an over-size post-trial brief [96]; and grants Defendant's motion to file a corrected table of contents to his post-trial brief [95]. For the reasons explained in Sections II and III below, the Court concludes that the Government established beyond a reasonable doubt that Defendant, on four occasions, committed wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343. Accordingly, the Court finds Defendant guilty of the charges in the Amended Indictment [80]. This matter is set for status on September 28, 2016 at 10:00 a.m..
Prior to trial, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss due to sovereign diplomatic immunity [18] and a motion to dismiss due to immunity protection per "Declaration of Immunity Mandate" of October 7, 2011 [27]. Although Defendant was represented by counsel when the motions were filed, see [16], Defendant appears to have prepared and filed the motions himself, acting pro se.1 This Court has "wide discretion to reject pro se submissions by defendants represented by counsel." United States v. Patterson, 576 F.3d 431, 437 (7th Cir. 2009). In this case, the Court accepts Defendant's submissions, but concludes that they lack merit and must be denied.
Defendant asserts in both motions that he filed a "declaration of immunity" with an administrative office of the United States Courts and that the declaration is posted and can be verified on all "Federal Screens," including "Blue," "Grey," "Green," and "Black." Defendantargues that because he enjoys immunity, all charges against him must be dismissed. Defendant does not identify any law or facts that would give him a right to immunity protection. Defendant does not claim, for instance, to be a foreign diplomat. And the Seventh Circuit has "repeatedly rejected . . . theories of individual sovereignty, immunity from prosecution, and their ilk," like Defendant asserts here. United States v. Benabe, 654 F.3d 753, 767 (7th Cir. 2011). In short, Defendant fails to establish that he is entitled to have the charges against him dismissed on immunity grounds. Therefore, Defendant's motions, [18] and [27], are denied.
A grand jury returned a four-count indictment ("Indictment") against Defendant in March 2013. See [4]. The Indictment identified two victims of Defendant: Victim 1, an ECS investor who resided in Wisconsin; and Victim 2, an ECS investor who resided in Colorado. The transcript from the Grand Jury shows that the Grand Jury understood Victim 1 to mean Jason Neilitz ("Neilitz") and for Victim 2 to mean Rawah Partners. [99-1] at 2. The Indictment alleged that Defendant intentionally devised and participated in a "scheme to defraud and to obtain money and property from Victim 1 and Victim 2 by means of materially false and fraudulent pretenses, representations, and promises, and by concealment of material facts." [4] at 2. According to the Indictment, "in or about March 2009, Corrigan asked Victim 1 and a representative of Victim 2 if they wanted to buy Company A stock, and, in doing so, falsely represented to them that he would use the investment money to pay Company A's health insurance expenses." Id. The Indictment further alleges that, as part of the scheme, Defendant "fraudulently induced Victim 1 to transfer $50,000 into [his] Bank of America personal account" on April 24, 2009, fraudulently induced Victim 2 to transfer $50,000 to his personal account on March 30, 2009, and fraudulently induced Victim 2 to transfer another $10,000 to his personal account on April 9, 2009. [4] at 3. According to the Indictment, Defendant did not use themoney to pay for ECS's health insurance, and instead used a portion of the money to pay his personal expenses while falsely representing to his victims that the money had been used on health insurance.
The original Indictment alleged that Defendant committed four counts of wire fraud by sending emails, all to "Victim 2," on March 22, 2009 (Count 1), March 25, 2009 (Count 2), November 7, 2011 (Count 3), and November 9, 2011 (Count 4). See [4] at 5-8. Specifically, Count 1 alleged that on March 22, 2009, Defendant emailed Victim 2 asking if Victim 2 would be interested in buying some additional stock in Company A. [4] at 5. Count 2 alleged that on March 25, 2009, Defendant emailed a representative of Victim 2 asking if he could sell Victim 2 another $50,000 in stock "to pay the Health Insurance by the end of March." [4] at 6. Count 3 alleged that on November 7, 2011, Defendant emailed the following statement to Victim 2, "Your funds did go into [Company A]." Id. at 7. Count 4 alleged that on November 9, 2011, Defendant sent an email to Victim 2 stating, "I can assure you that your 60k was used to pay up Health Insurance in 2009." [4] at 8.
On December 9, 2015, Defendant moved to dismiss Counts 2, 3, and 4 of the Indictment on the ground that they were multiplicitous of Count 1. See [75]. The Court deferred briefing on the motion until the conclusion of the bench trial. See [77]. On December 10, 2015, the Government filed a motion to file an amended indictment [76], which Defendant did not oppose, id. at 2. The Government explained that there were typographical errors in the first paragraphs of Counts 2, 3, and 4 because they purported to incorporate paragraphs 1 through 16 of Count 1 even though Count 1 included only twelve paragraphs. Id. The Government requested to amend the indictment so that Counts 2, 3, and 4 incorporate the correct paragraphs 1 through 11 of Count 1.
The Court granted the Government's motion [83] and the amended indictment("Amended Indictment") [80] was filed on the docket. In addition to fixing the typographical errors noted in its motion to amend, the Amended Indictment also identifies the ECS investor who resided in Wisconsin as Jason Neilitz (Victim 1 in the original indictment) and the ECS investor who resided in Colorado as Rawah Partners (Victim 2 in the original indictment). As is relevant here, in Count 1 of the Amended Indictment the Government alleges that on March 22, 2009, Defendant asked Neilitz—rather than "Victim 2" as alleged in the original complaint—if Neilitz was interested in buying some additional stock in ECS. [80] at 5.
Following trial, Defendant filed a motion for leave to file a reply in support of his motion to dismiss. See [98]. The Court now grants Defendant's motion for leave to file a reply brief [98] and turns to the merits of the motion to dismiss.2
Defendant argues that Count 1 of the Amended Indictment must be dismissed because the Government's substitution of "Neilitz" for "Victim 2" as the recipient of Defendant's March 22, 2009 email constitutes a constructive amendment to the original Indictment, which the Government failed to resubmit to the Grand Jury in violation of the Fifth Amendment.
"The Fifth Amendment guarantee of the right to indictment by a grand jury" and "its protection against double jeopardy"—along with the "Sixth Amendment guarantee that a defendant be informed of the nature of the charges against him"—"establish the minimum requirements for an indictment." United States v. Fassnacht, 332 F.3d 440, 444 (7th Cir. 2003). To comport with these constitutional requirements, an indictment must accomplish three functions: (1) state each element of each crime charged; (2) provide adequate notice of the natureof the charges so as to enable the defendant to prepare his defense; and (3) allow the defendant to raise the judgment as a bar to future prosecutions for the same offense. Id. at 444-45. "[A]fter an indictment has been returned its charges may not be broadened through amendment except by the grand jury itself." Stirone v. United States, 361 U.S. 212, 215-16 (1960); see also United States v. Leichtnam, 948 F.2d 370, 376 (7th Cir. 1991).
"A constructive amendment of an indictment occurs when the evidence at...
To continue reading
Request your trial