United States v. Tony Sparkman
101 Fed. R. Serv. 1431, 842 F.3d 959, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 20685 (2016)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
To admit evidence of a defendant's unexplained wealth in a drug case, the government must lay a foundation by providing sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to conclude that the wealth was not obtained through legitimate means. A factual dispute over the legitimacy of the defendant's income source goes to the weight of the evidence for the jury to decide, not its admissibility.
Facts:
- In 1998, Chicago Police Officer Glenn Lewellen and informant Saul Rodriguez began a criminal enterprise robbing drug dealers.
- The enterprise grew to include multiple participants, including Hector Uriarte, and expanded its criminal activities to include kidnappings and murders between 1998 and 2009.
- During the conspiracy, Hector Uriarte made numerous lavish purchases, including business investments of $250,000, a home with a $66,162 cash down payment, vehicles worth around $227,000, and a $20,000 diamond bracelet.
- On mortgage and vehicle financing applications, Hector Uriarte represented that he was employed by a business called Platinum Motors and earned a substantial monthly salary.
- The owner of Platinum Motors, Roy Corral, testified that Hector had never actually worked there, and that he only provided Hector with payroll checks because he felt threatened.
- A co-conspirator, Andres Flores, testified that Hector told him he invested in Platinum Motors as a way to create the appearance of a legitimate job.
- Separately, Glenn Lewellen started a homebuilding business after leaving the police force in 2002.
- During the conspiracy period, Lewellen also made large expenditures, often in cash, including paying $145,000 in cash for classic cars and paying subcontractors with large sums of cash bound in rubber bands.
Procedural Posture:
- The United States government indicted Glenn Lewellen, Hector Uriarte, and others on charges including RICO conspiracy and narcotics conspiracy in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.
- Prior to trial, Hector Uriarte filed a motion in limine seeking to exclude financial evidence that the government intended to offer under an 'unexplained wealth' theory.
- The district court, as the court of first instance, denied the motion, ruling the evidence was admissible if the government laid the proper foundation under existing precedent.
- After a jury trial, Hector Uriarte and Glenn Lewellen were convicted on the narcotics conspiracy count.
- Both defendants filed post-trial motions for a new trial, arguing the district court erred by admitting the financial evidence, but the motions were denied.
- Lewellen and Hector, as appellants, appealed their convictions to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, challenging the district court's evidentiary rulings.
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 government provide a sufficient foundation to admit evidence of a defendant's lavish spending under an 'unexplained wealth' theory when it introduces testimony that the defendant's claimed legitimate source of income was fraudulent?
Opinions:
Majority - Kanne, Circuit Judge
Yes. When the government introduces sufficient evidence for a reasonable factfinder to conclude that a defendant's wealth was not from a legitimate source, evidence of that wealth becomes relevant and admissible. The court applied the three-prong test from United States v. Carrera, focusing on the third prong, which requires the government to present evidence that the income was not obtained through legitimate means. The court framed this as a question of conditional relevancy under Federal Rule of Evidence 104(b), where the judge's role is to make a preliminary determination of whether sufficient foundation evidence exists for a jury to find the predicate fact (i.e., that the income source was illegitimate). In Hector Uriarte's case, the testimony from the owner of Platinum Motors and a co-conspirator that his employment was a sham was sufficient evidence for a jury to conclude his income was not legitimate. Therefore, the evidence of his lavish spending was properly admitted, and any dispute about the job's legitimacy was a question of weight for the jury. In contrast, the court found it was improper to characterize co-defendant Lewellen's wealth as 'unexplained' because the government failed to present any evidence about the income from his known legitimate homebuilding business, making it impossible for the jury to determine if his spending was inconsistent with his legitimate earnings.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the foundational requirements for admitting 'unexplained wealth' evidence under the Carrera test, framing it as a matter of conditional relevance under FRE 104(b). It establishes that the government's burden is not to definitively disprove every possible legitimate income source, but rather to provide sufficient evidence for a jury to find that a claimed source was illegitimate. This lowers the admissibility threshold for prosecutors, shifting disputes over the legitimacy of income from a preliminary judicial finding to a question of evidentiary weight for the jury. However, the ruling also underscores the government's duty to address known legitimate sources of income, as its failure to do so in Lewellen's case rendered the 'unexplained wealth' theory improper.
Unlock the full brief for United States v. Tony Sparkman