Use this button to switch between dark and light mode.

Share your feedback on this Case Opinion Preview

Thank You For Submiting Feedback!

Experience a New Era in Legal Research with Free Access to Lexis+

  • Case Opinion

United States v. Thomas

United States v. Thomas

United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

December 4, 2003, Argued ; July 28, 2004, Decided

Docket No. 02-1029

Opinion

 [*234]  JOHN R. GIBSON, Circuit Judge.

Wade Thomas appeals from his conviction of inducement of travel in interstate commerce for a fraudulent purpose, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2314. Thomas argues that there is insufficient evidence to sustain the conviction, that the district court erred in instructing the jury and in restricting the cross-examination of the victim, and that the prosecutor made improper statements in her summation. We affirm.

In 1996, Dannie Holmes was the pastor of the Greater Hope Baptist Church, located in a low-income area of Memphis, Tennessee. Wishing to make improvements to the church, Pastor Holmes began preparations to build a family life center. The plans called for a gym, a fellowship hall, office space, classrooms, a kitchen, and day-care facilities. The estimated cost of the project was at least $ 1.3 million. Because the church only had about $ 20,000 in its account at that time, it needed outside financing to fund the project.

Pastor Holmes had no training in finance, so for several years he had employed Robert Mukes, president of Mukes Management Company, to assist him in making the church's financial [**3]  decisions and to provide financial services for the church. Mukes had incorporated the church as a tax-exempt organization and had assisted in purchasing and renovating a house for a needy congregant. Mukes reconciled the church's books every month and the church paid him a regular monthly salary.

Pastor Holmes hired Mukes to secure the outside financing needed to fund the family life center project. If Mukes was successful, he would be paid 4% of the loan amount, in addition to his usual salary. Mukes prepared a business loan package to present to local banks, in which he proposed to restructure the church's current mortgage and borrow funds to build the family life center. Because the church's cash assets were less than the amount the banks required to secure the requested loan amount, Mukes was unable to obtain loans large enough to cover the estimated cost of the project from Memphis banks.

Continuing to seek financing on behalf of the church, Mukes's inquiries eventually led him to Wade Thomas, a self-described financial consultant in New York City. Thomas told Mukes that he could secure financing for the church through a no-risk, high-yield investment program. Because Mukes [**4]  was not familiar with the type of program and did not fully understand it, he asked Thomas to come to Memphis to  [*235]  explain the program in further detail. Thomas replied that he could not leave New York and suggested instead that Mukes come to New York to meet with him. Mukes agreed.

Read The Full CaseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.

377 F.3d 232 *; 2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 15542 **

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellee, v. WADE THOMAS, Defendant-Appellant.

Prior History:  [**1]  Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Reena Raggi, District Judge) following a conviction for inducement of travel in interstate commerce for a fraudulent purpose, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2314. Appellant argues that his conviction must be reversed because the person induced to travel interstate was not the person ultimately defrauded. He also asserts that the district court erred in restricting the cross-examination of the victim and in instructing the jury regarding the victim's conduct. Finally, he argues that the prosecutor made improper statements in her summation.

Disposition: Affirmed.

CORE TERMS

church, travel, induced, misconduct, defraud, argues, district court, financing, ordinary prudence, insufficient evidence, fraudulent scheme, deceive, scheme to defraud, cross-examination, credibility, interstate, convicted, funds, person of ordinary prudence, investment program, representations, transported, asserts, bind, interstate commerce, fraudulent intent, instruct a jury, family life, misunderstanding, calculated

Criminal Law & Procedure, Stolen Property, Transporting Stolen Property, Elements, Criminal Offenses, Fraud, General Overview, False Pretenses, Business & Corporate Law, Agency Relationships, Establishment, Standards of Review, Substantial Evidence, Evidence, Weight & Sufficiency, Definitions, Governments, Fiduciaries, Agents Distinguished, Fiduciaries, Consent, Elements, Independent Contractors, Masters & Servants, Plain Error, Burdens of Proof, Definition of Plain Error, Jury Instructions, Courts, Judicial Precedent, Trials, Jury Instructions, Objections, Examination of Witnesses, Cross-Examination, Abuse of Discretion, Burdens of Proof, Prosecution, Fraud Against the Government, Mail Fraud, Wire Fraud, Penalties, Sentencing Guidelines, Adjustments & Enhancements, Special Skills, Closing Arguments, Inflammatory Statements, Legal Ethics, Prosecutorial Conduct, Appeals, Prosecutorial Misconduct, Reversible Error, Prosecutorial Misconduct, Fair Comment & Fair Response, Opening Statements, Curative Instructions, Particular Instructions