United States v. Perez
489 F.2d 51 (1973)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A single criminal conspiracy exists if there is one overall agreement among various parties to perform different functions in order to carry out the objectives of a common criminal scheme, even if the participants and specific acts change over time.
Facts:
- Kenneth DeMary, Larry DeMary, and Mayo Perez agreed to a scheme to make money by staging fraudulent automobile accidents and submitting false personal injury claims to insurance companies.
- The scheme utilized a consistent methodology involving 'recruiters,' 'hitters' who drove the liable vehicle, and 'riders' in a 'target' vehicle, who would feign injuries.
- Pregnant women were often recruited as 'riders' because their claims of pregnancy-related injuries were difficult to disprove.
- A network of complicit lawyers and doctors was essential to the scheme; the doctors created false medical histories, and the lawyers submitted the fraudulent claims using the U.S. mails.
- The lawyers provided cash advances to the 'riders,' from which organizers and recruiters took a share. Upon settlement, the proceeds were used to repay the advances and pay inflated medical bills, often with kickbacks to the organizers and lawyers.
- The DeMary brothers, the core organizers, remained in constant communication while staging numerous collisions across Louisiana, sometimes collaborating and other times operating in different areas.
- To avoid detection, the scheme involved a constantly changing cast of riders, drivers, doctors, and lawyers, though there was significant overlap in personnel across different staged accidents.
Procedural Posture:
- On April 3, 1967, a federal grand jury returned a thirteen-count indictment against the twelve appellants and nine others, charging them with conspiracy to commit mail fraud and various substantive mail fraud offenses.
- Prior to trial, three defendants (Larry Dale DeMary, Kenneth Richard DeMary, and Charles Leon Winn) entered pleas of guilty.
- The remaining defendants were tried before a jury in the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana (the trial court).
- During the trial, the court entered judgments of acquittal for defendants Elda DeMary and Jimmy Vital and dismissed five substantive counts of the indictment for insufficient evidence.
- The jury returned verdicts of guilty as to the twelve appellants on the remaining counts and acquitted one defendant, Nolan Breaux.
- Following the trial, the trial court entered an order dismissing the indictment as to defendants Walter Borsch and Roosevelt Prater.
- The twelve convicted defendants (the appellants) appealed their convictions to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the evidence of numerous, geographically dispersed, and separately executed fraudulent automobile accidents, orchestrated by a core group of individuals with overlapping but not identical participants, prove a single overall conspiracy rather than multiple, distinct conspiracies?
Opinions:
Majority - John R. Brown, Chief Judge
Yes, the evidence was sufficient for a jury to find a single, overall conspiracy. The court determined that this was not a series of separate, 'one shot' efforts, but rather a single, grand scheme with one overall agreement among the participants to achieve the common purpose of defrauding insurance companies. The court rejected rigid structural analogies like 'wheel' or 'chain' conspiracies, focusing instead on the nature of the agreement. The success and longevity of the enterprise for the core organizers and professionals depended on continuous cooperation and repeated fraudulent acts. This interdependence, combined with the overlapping membership and the common, overarching goal, demonstrated a concert of action with a single design, justifying the single conspiracy charge and distinguishing the case from Kotteakos v. United States, where the separate criminal schemes were not interdependent.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces a broad interpretation of what constitutes a single conspiracy, particularly in the context of large-scale, ongoing criminal enterprises. By focusing on the existence of 'one overall agreement' and the interdependence of the criminal acts, the court makes it easier for prosecutors to try members of a complex organization together under a single conspiracy charge. This avoids the difficulty of proving multiple, separate conspiracies and prevents defendants from claiming prejudice due to a variance between the indictment and the proof. The ruling signals that courts should look at the substance and common objective of the criminal enterprise as a whole, rather than getting bogged down in rigid structural analogies like 'hub-and-spoke' or 'chain' conspiracies.
Unlock the full brief for United States v. Perez