Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
3Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Reade Denies Sigillito Mtn for New Trial

Reade Denies Sigillito Mtn for New Trial

Ratings: (0)|Views: 365 |Likes:
Published by nphillips0304

More info:

Published by: nphillips0304 on Aug 08, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

01/08/2014

pdf

text

original

 
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURIEASTERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,Plaintiff,No. 11-CR-168-LRvs.
ORDER
MARTIN T. SIGILLITO,Defendant.____________________
TABLE OF CONTENTS  I.INTRODUCTION.......................................2 II.RELEVANT PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND....................2 III.RELEVANT TRIAL EVIDENCE.............................3 A.Players.........................................3B.Scheme to Defraud.................................31.Beginning................................... 2.Operations...................................a.IRA loans...............................b.Marketing materials........................c.Loan agreements..........................d.Fees..................................3.Collapse...................................1 IV.MOTION FOR JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL..................11 A.Legal Standard...................................11B.Analysis........................................121.Insufficient evidence of mail fraud..................12 2.Insufficient evidence of intent to defraud..............15 C.Summary.......................................1V.MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL..............................1 A.Legal Standard...................................18 B.Analysis........................................11.Due process rights............................2
Case: 4:11-cr-00168-LRR Doc. #: 325 Filed: 08/07/12 Page: 1 of 31 PageID #: 5362
 
a.Governmental misconduct during trial...........2i.Presentation of false testimony............21ii.References to Bernard Madoff............22iii.Statement of personal belief.............2iv.Intimidation of defense witness...........2v.Allowing witnesses to discuss testimony......2vi.Structuring witness testimony............2b.Governmental misconduct pretrial..............2 2.Right to counsel..............................29 3.Restriction of cross-examination of Mary OSullivan......2 4.Weight of the evidence..........................30 C.Summary.......................................3VI.CONCLUSION.......................................31 I. INTRODUCTION 
The matters before the court are Defendant Martin T. Sigillito’s “Motion for[Judgment] of Acquittal” (docket no. 261) (“Motion for Judgment of Acquittal”) and“Motion for New Trial” (docket no. 262) (collectively, “Motions”).
 II. RELEVANT PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 
On April 28, 2011, the government filed a twenty-two count Indictment (docket no.2) against Defendant, James Scott Brown and Derek J. Smith. Counts 1 through 9 chargedDefendant with committing wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1343 and 2(b). Counts10 through 15 charged Defendant with committing mail fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C.§§ 1341 and 2(b). Count 16 charged Defendant, Brown and Smith with conspiracy tocommit wire and mail fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371. Counts 17 through 22charged Defendant with engaging in and attempting to engage in money launderingtransactions in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1957 and 2(b). The Indictment also containeda forfeiture allegation. On September 16, 2011, Brown and Smith pled guilty to Count 16.Defendant elected to proceed to trial.On March 19, 2012, a jury trial on Counts 1 through 22 of the Indictment commenced. On April 9, 2012, at the close of the government’s evidence, the government 
2
Case: 4:11-cr-00168-LRR Doc. #: 325 Filed: 08/07/12 Page: 2 of 31 PageID #: 5363
 
moved to dismiss Counts 14 and 15, and the court granted the motion. Defendant movedfor a judgment of acquittal on the remaining counts, which the court denied. On April 11,2012, at the close of all of the evidence, Defendant again moved for a judgment of acquittal on the remaining counts, which the court again denied. On April 13, 2012, the jury returned guilty verdicts on Counts 1 through 13 and 16 through 22.On May 2, 2012, Defendant filed the Motion for Judgment of Acquittal and Motion for New Trial. On May 17, 2012, the government filed a Resistance (docket no. 271) tothe Motion for Judgment of Acquittal and a Resistance (docket no. 273) to the Motion forNew Trial. On June 13, 2012, Defendant filed a Reply (docket no. 292) to the Resistanceto the Motion for Judgment of Acquittal. On June 14, 2012, Defendant filed a Reply(docket no. 293) to the Resistance to the Motion for New Trial. The Motions are fullysubmitted and ready for decision.
 III. RELEVANT TRIAL EVIDENCE 
1
Viewed in the light most favorable to the government, the trial evidence is asfollows:
 A. Players
Defendant is an attorney in the St. Louis, Missouri, area and he is also an American Anglican Bishop. Brown is an attorney in the Kansas City, Kansas, area. Smith is a realestate developer in England. Smith owns Distinctive Properties (UK) Limited(“Distinctive Properties”).
B. Scheme to Defraud 
From approximately 1999 to 2010, Defendant organized and operated a fraudulent loan program that induced individuals to loan money to Smith and Distinctive Properties
1
 
When relevant, the court relies on and discusses additional facts in conjunction with its analysis of the law.
3
Case: 4:11-cr-00168-LRR Doc. #: 325 Filed: 08/07/12 Page: 3 of 31 PageID #: 5364

Activity (3)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 thousand reads
1 hundred reads
Anna Loughlin liked this

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->