United States v. Komasa
| Decision Date | 05 November 2012 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 2:10-cr-72 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Vermont |
| Parties | UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. THOMAS KOMASA, HEIDI KOMASA, Defendants. |
Defendants Thomas and Heidi Komasa filed timely motions for judgment of acquittal or, in the alternative, a new trial on August 10 and 13, 2012, respectively. For the reasons stated below, the motions are denied.
In a motion to overturn a jury verdict pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 29(c) on sufficiency of the evidence grounds, the burden placed upon the moving party is a heavy one. A conviction stands if the Court finds, after "'viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.'" United States v. Desnoyers, 637 F.3d 105, 109 (2d Cir. 2011), quoting Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979). A motion for a new trial pursuant to Rule 33 however has a less stringent standard. Under that rule, the Court "may vacate any judgment and grant a new trial if the interest of justice so requires." Fed. R. Crim. P. 33(a).
Both Komasas raise several objections to the jury's verdict. First, they pose a general attack upon the decision based upon the insufficiency of the evidence. Thomas Komasa asserts there is insufficient evidence linking him to misrepresentations in the various mortgage applications because he signed only the first loan application. Both Komasas argue the various misrepresentations in the loan documents concerning income, assets and liabilities, primaryresidence, schedules of real property and other matters were not materially false, nor proven to be so. Heidi Komasa claims the Government failed to prove she had the requisite intent to commit the crimes set forth in the counts of conviction.
All of these issues raised by the defendants were addressed during the trial through the introduction of substantial amounts of conflicting evidence. A reasonable jury could certainly have concluded that Thomas Komasa knowingly participated in the filing of false applications for mortgages, because he was the person primarily involved in the scheme to obtain real estate loans. Numerous financial officers testified that they dealt exclusively with Thomas Komasa, and that he was fully familiar with the details of each transaction. Many lenders testified that he supplied the relevant information which formed the bases for the loans. From those facts, a jury could reasonable conclude Thomas Komasa knowingly misrepresented facts on the loan applications.
Although both sides introduced evidence concerning whether or not statements relating to the Komasas' income, assets and liabilities, primary residence and schedules of real estate were false, a jury could reasonably conclude the Komasas' representations were false. All of those statements were material, including the primary residence representations, since they affected the likelihood of the Komasas obtaining approval for the loans and the rates of interest to be charged on those loans. The parties disputed the definitions of income, assets and liabilities. The Government introduced testimony from individuals involved in the mortgage-lending industry who defined those terms in such a way as to permit a finding that the mortgage applications in this case were false. The issue of whether the applications contained false information, and whether the Komasas knew the information to be false was for the jury todecide.
A jury could also have reasonably concluded that Heidi Komasa knew of the misrepresentations based upon her involvement in the various purchases of real estate and the signing of the loan documents. Again, the issue of her knowledge was a jury question. The Court therefore denies the Komasas' motion for judgment of acquittal as it relates to those particular claims.
Heidi Komasa has requested a new trial, asserting the Court erred in denying her motion in limine regarding Rule 404(b) evidence, including the 2001 and 2002 alleged fraudulent mortgage applications, her bankruptcy and a number of tax returns. The Court found the mortgage applications were sufficiently close in time to be relevant, and that such relevance substantially outweighed the prejudice that she might suffer. The Court made a similar finding regarding the bankruptcy and tax returns. Ms. Komasa's knowledge of the fraudulent activity, as well as her decision to willfully participate in the scheme, were hotly contested issues. This contested evidence related directly to her knowledge and her intent to participate in the fraudulent scheme. As a result, such evidence was highly probative of one of the central issues in the case. The prejudicial impact of the fact that she had filed for bankruptcy in the past was minimal. The Court reaffirms its ruling that the Rule 404(b) evidence was admissible and did not unfairly prejudice Ms. Komasa.
Thomas Komasa raises several objections to the jury's verdict with respect to individual counts. He objects to his convictions for mail fraud on counts 2 and 3, essentially arguing there is no evidence to prove the mortgage applications were put in the mail. In Count 2, the closing packet to Option One did not include the mortgage application. However Attorney Ferenctestified he would have submitted the application in the packet according to his standard practice of completing mortgage transactions and as required by the instructions for conducting a real estate closing. Such testimony supports a reasonable conclusion by a jury that the false application was mailed as part of the closing documents when put in the context of other evidence elicited at trial. In count 3, a loan application was part of the file, but, according to the defendant, there was no evidence introduced as to how the documents were transferred to the American Home Mortgage Acceptance Corporation. Again, Attorney Ferenc testified he would have mailed the documents after the closing according to his standard operating procedures and the closing instructions from the lender. The jury could have reasonably relied upon such testimony...
To continue reading
Request your trial