United States v. Parnell
| Decision Date | 28 May 2015 |
| Docket Number | CASE NO.: 1:13-CR-12 (WLS) |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Georgia |
| Parties | UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. STEWART PARNELL, MICHAEL PARNELL, and MARY WILKERSON, Defendants. |
Pending before the Court are Defendant Stewart Parnell's Motion for Judgment of Acquittal, Motion for Dismissal or, in the Alternative, Motion for New Trial (Doc. 326), Defendant Michael Parnell's Motion for Judgment of Acquittal, as amended (Docs. 313 & 353), Defendant Mary Wilkerson's Motion for Judgment of Acquittal, as amended (Docs. 306, 325 & 382), Defendant Mary Wilkerson's Motion for New Trial (Docs. 339), Defendant Mary Wilkerson's Motion to Dismiss the Indictment on Count 73 or, in the Alternative, Motion for a New Trial (Doc. 387), Defendant Mary Wilkerson's Motion for Authorization for Payment (Doc. 396), and the Defendants' Joint Motion for New Trial, as amended (Docs. 308, 319, 328, 350, 353 & 362). For the reasons that follow, those Motions, as amended (See Docs. 306, 308, 313, 319, 325, 326, 328, 339, 350, 353, 362, 382, 387 & 396) are DENIED.
Under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 29, a defendant's motion for judgment of acquittal should be granted if the Court finds that "the evidence is insufficient to sustain a conviction." Fed. R. Crim. P. 29(a). Thus, the Court "must determine whether a reasonable jury could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt." United States v. Mercer, 541 F.3d 1070, 1074 (11th Cir. 2008) (citing United States v. Ward, 197 F.3d 1076, 1079 (11th Cir. 1999)). The conviction must be upheld unless the Court finds that "the jury could not have found the defendant guilty under any reasonable construction of the evidence."United States v. Jimenez, 705 F.3d 1305, 1308 (11th Cir. 2013) (citing United States v. Merrill, 513 F.3d 1293, 1299 (11th Cir. 2008)).
In construing the evidence, the Court must take the evidence in the light most favorable to the Government. United States v. Maxwell, 579 F.3d 1282, 1299 (11th Cir. 2009) (citing United States v. Futrell, 209 F.3d 1286, 1288 (11th Cir. 2000)). Accordingly, the Court must "resolve any conflicts in favor of the Government, draw all reasonable inferences that tend to support the prosecution's case, and assume that the jury made all credibility choices in support of the verdict." Id. (). "The prosecution need not rebut all reasonable hypotheses other than guilt." United States v. Sellers, 871 F.2d 1019, 1021 (11th Cir. 1989) (citing United States v. Bell, 678 F.2d 547, 549 (5th Cir. 1982)). Thus, "[i]t is not enough for a defendant to put forth a reasonable hypothesis of innocence, because the issue is not whether a jury reasonably could have acquitted but whether it reasonably could have found guilt beyond a reasonable doubt." Thompson, 473 F.3d at 1142 (citing United States v. Mieres-Borges, 919 F.2d 652, 656 (11th Cir. 1990)). If, as it did here, the Court reserves decision on the motion made at the close of the Government's evidence, the Court "must decide the motion on the basis of the evidence at the time the ruling was reserved." Fed. R. Crim. P. 29(b).
In this case, the Indictment charged Defendants Stewart and Michael Parnell with Conspiracy to Commit Mail and Wire Fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1349 i/c/w 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341 & 1343, Conspiracy to Introduce and Deliver for Introduction into Interstate Commerce with Intent to Defraud or Mislead Adulterated and Misbranded Food in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371 i/c/w 21 U.S.C. §§ 331(a) & 333(a)(2), Introduction of Adulterated and Misbranded Food into Interstate Commerce with Intent to Defraud or Mislead in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 331(a) & 333(a)(2), Mail Fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1341, and Wire Fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343. (See Doc. 1 at 14-15, 23, 40-48.) Also, the Indictment charged Stewart Parnell and Defendant Mary Wilkerson with obstruction of justice in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1505. (See id. at 49-50.)
"To sustain [a] conspiracy conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 1349, the government must prove that (1) a conspiracy existed; (2) the defendant knew of it; and (3) the defendant knowingly and voluntarily joined it." United States v. Moran, 778 F.3d 942, 960 (11th Cir. 2015) (citing United States v. Vernon, 723 F.3d 1234, 1273 (11th Cir. 2013)). The Indictmentalleged that the substantive offenses underlying the § 1349 conspiracy charge were mail and wire fraud. (See Doc. 1 at 14.) "Aside from the means by which a fraud is effectuated, the elements of mail fraud, 18 U.S.C. § 1341, and wire fraud, 18 U.S.C. § 1343, are identical." United States v. Ward, 486 F.3d 1212, 1221-22 (11th Cir. 2012) (citing Beck v. Prupis, 162 F.3d 1090, 1095 & n.9 (11th Cir. 1998)). "Both offenses require that a person (1) intentionally participates in a scheme or artifice to defraud another of money or property, and (2) uses or causes the use of the mails or wires for the purpose of executing the scheme or artifice." Id. at 1222 (). "A scheme to defraud requires proof of material misrepresentations, or the omission or concealment of material facts reasonably calculated to deceive persons of ordinary prudence." Hasson, 333 F.3d at 1270-71 (citations omitted). "Proof of specific intent to use the mails or wire[s] is not required to show conspiracy to commit mail or wire fraud[, only that the defendants] agreed to engage in a scheme to defraud in which they contemplated that the mails [or wires] would likely be used." United States v. Ross, 131 F.3d 970, 981 (11th Cir. 1997) (citing United States v. Massey, 827 F.2d 995, 1001-02 (5th Cir. 1987)).
"The elements of a conspiracy under 18 U.S.C. § 371 are (1) an agreement among two or more persons to achieve an unlawful objective; (2) knowing and voluntary participation in the agreement; and (3) an overt act by a conspirator in furtherance of the agreement." Hasson, 333 F.3d at 1270 (citing United States v. Adkinson, 158 F.3d 1147, 1153 (11th Cir. 1998)). The Indictment alleged that violations of 21 U.S.C. §§ 331(a) and 333(a)(2) are the substantive offenses underlying the § 371 conspiracy charge. (Doc. 1 at 23.) Under Title 21, United States Code, Sections 331(a) and 333(a)(2), it is illegal to "introduc[e] or deliver[ ] for introduction into interstate commerce . . . any food . . . that is adulterated or misbranded" "with the intent to defraud or mislead." A food is adulterated "[i]f it bears or contains any poisonous or deleterious substance which may render it injurious to health." 21 U.S.C. § 342(a)(1). A food is misbranded if "its labeling is false or misleading in any particular." Id. § 343(a)(1).
The elements of obstruction of justice under 18 U.S.C. § 1505 are (1) a proceeding was pending before a department or agency of the United States; (2) the defendant was aware of the pending proceeding; and (3) the defendant "intentionally endeavored corruptlyto influence, obstruct or impede the pending proceeding." United States v. Price, 951 F.2d 1028, 1031 (9th Cir. 1991) (citations omitted). "The term 'corruptly' means 'acting with an improper purpose, personally or by influencing another, including making a false or misleading statement, or withholding, concealing, altering, or destroying a document or other information.' " United States v. Taohim, 529 F. App'x 969, 972 (11th Cir. 2013) (citing 18 U.S.C. § 1515(b)).
Stewart Parnell was indicted on one count of conspiracy in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1349 i/c/w 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341 & 1343, one count of conspiracy in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371 i/c/w 21 U.S.C. §§ 331(a) & 333(a)(2), twenty counts of introduction of adulterated food into interstate commerce with intent to defraud or mislead in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 331(a) & 333(a)(2), thirteen counts of introduction of misbranded food into interstate commerce with intent to defraud or mislead in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 331(a) & 333(a)(2), twenty counts of mail fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1341, eleven counts of wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343, and two counts of obstruction of justice in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1505. (See Doc. 1.) More simply, Stewart Parnell was indicted for mail fraud and wire fraud, conspiracy to commit those crimes under § 1349; introduction of adulterated and misbranded food into interstate commerce with intent to defraud or mislead, and conspiracy to commit those crimes under § 371; and obstruction of justice. Stewart Parnell was convicted by jury on all counts as alleged in the Indictment. (See Doc. 285.)
Stewart Parnell contends that the evidence introduced against him at trial was insufficient to sustain a conviction for any charge. (Doc. 326 at 1.) Stewart Parnell argues that the evidence demonstrated that "he had a good faith belief that retesting was a legitimate process and he believed the Operation Manager at the Blakely[, Georgia,] plant was properly following protocol." (Id.) Stewart Parnell states that "[t]he only direct evidence of [his] participation in any criminal activity was Mr. Kilgore's testimony regarding [his] knowledge of the Kellogg's scheme." (Id.) According to Stewart Parnell, because Kilgore's testimony "was impeached through cross-examination," such testimony "should be ignored." (Id. at 1-2.)
As stated above, the Court must "resolve any conflicts in favor of the Government, draw all reasonable inferences that tend to support the prosecution's case, and assume that the jury made all credibility choices in support of the verdict." Maxwell, 579 F.3d at 1299.The question confronting the Court is not whether the evidence introduced at trial would have supported an acquittal. Thompson, 473 F.3d at 1142. The Court...
To continue reading
Request your trial