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
Viewed in the light most favorable to the government, the trial evidence is asfollows:
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
When relevant, the court relies on and discusses additional facts in conjunction with its analysis of the law.
Case: 4:11-cr-00168-LRR Doc. #: 325 Filed: 08/07/12 Page: 3 of 31 PageID #: 5364