Download - Spanier Mtn Dismiss Binder2
-
8/18/2019 Spanier Mtn Dismiss Binder2
1/117
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
TIMOTHY A. SCOTTCalifornia Bar No. 215074LAW OFFICES OF TIMOTHY A. SCOTT, APC1350 Columbia Street, Suite 600San Diego, California 92101Telephone: (619) 794-0451
Facsimile: (619) 652-9964email: [email protected]
Attorneys for Jeffrey Spanier
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
(HONORABLE JEFFREY T. MILLER)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) Case No. 12-CR-00918-JM)
Plaintiff, ) Date: May 6, 2016) Time: 11:00 a.m.
v. )) Notice of Motion and Motion to:
JEFFREY SPANIER, )) 1. Dismiss Indictment with Prejudice
Defendant. ) )
Mr. Spanier, by and through counsel, asks that the Court grant the above-captioned
motion. This motion is based on the memorandum of points and authorities and exhibits,
attached, and all files and records in this case.
Dated: April 4, 2016 Respectfully submitted,
s/ Timothy A. Scott TIMOTHY A. SCOTTNICOLAS O. JIMENEZLAW OFFICES OF TIMOTHY ASCOTT, APCAttorneys for Mr. Spanier
Case 3:12-cr-00918-JM Document 445 Filed 04/04/16 Page 1 of 1
-
8/18/2019 Spanier Mtn Dismiss Binder2
2/117
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
TIMOTHY A. SCOTTCalifornia Bar No. 215074LAW OFFICES OF TIMOTHY A. SCOTT, APC1350 Columbia Street, Suite 600San Diego, California 92101Telephone: (619) 794-0451
Facsimile: (619) 652-9964email: [email protected]
Attorneys for Jeffrey Spanier
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
(HONORABLE JEFFREY T. MILLER)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) Case No. 12-CR-00918-JM)
Plaintiff, ) Date: May 6, 2016) Time: 11:00 a.m.
v. )) Memorandum of Points and Authorities in
JEFFREY SPANIER, ) Support of Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss) Indictment with Prejudice
Defendant. ) )
I.
Introduction and Issue Presented
The Speedy Trial Act required that Mr. Spanier be retried within 70 days after his
first trial deadlocked. That did not happen. The Court now looks to the seriousness of
the offense, the facts and circumstances of the dismissal, and the impact of any re-
prosecution on the administration of justice to determine whether the indictment should
be dismissed with or without prejudice. Because the government used the delay to
secure an immunized witness against Mr. Spanier, because its litigation positions
throughout the case have compounded the violation, and because of the considerable
out-of-court impact of these proceedings on Mr. Spanier and his life, the indictment
should be dismissed with prejudice.
1 12-CR-00918-JM
Case 3:12-cr-00918-JM Document 445-1 Filed 04/04/16 Page 1 of 13
-
8/18/2019 Spanier Mtn Dismiss Binder2
3/117
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
II.
Statement of Facts
A. Mr. Spanier’s first trial ends in acquittals and a hung jury.
This case began more than four years ago, when a grand jury indicted Mr. Spanier
and two codefendants, James Miceli and Douglas McClain, Jr., for mail fraud, wire
fraud, and related offenses. See Docket 1. Miceli and McClain ran the Argyll Group.
Argyll made loans to corporate executives, secured by the executives’ stock collateral.
Id. Mr. Spanier ran a company called Amerifund, which essentially connected
interested executives with Argyll in exchange for a percentage-based fee. Id .
The government’s theory of the case was that Miceli, McClain, and Mr. Spanier
defrauded the executives and stole the stock collateral. Argyll falsely represented that it
had substantial independent sources of cash to lend and that it would not sell the stock
pledged as collateral unless the borrowers defaulted on their loans. Id . But in reality,
Argyll sold the borrowers’ stock to fund the loans. Id. Mr. Spanier, according to the
government, participated in the fraud by luring borrowers into the scheme and then
ignoring or deceiving them when confronted with evidence of Argyll’s wrongdoing. The
government also pointed to undisclosed “back-end” fees that Mr. Spanier received from
Argyll as evidence of his knowledge and acquiescence in the fraud. Mr. Spanier
adamantly denied these allegations and prepared to defend the case at trial.
Pretrial, the Court declared the case complex under the Speedy Trial Act, but
limited excludable time from September 24, 2012 until January 23, 2013. See Exhibit A.
Mr. Spanier and McClain went to trial on May 14, 2013. After a lengthy trial and five1
days of deliberations, the jury acquitted Mr. Spanier on six counts and deadlocked on the
rest. See Docket 212. It convicted McClain on all counts. See Docket 211. McClain
received a sentence of 15 years in custody. His conviction and sentence were affirmed
on appeal.
Sadly, defendant Miceli committed suicide while on pretrial release.1
2 12-CR-00918-JM
Case 3:12-cr-00918-JM Document 445-1 Filed 04/04/16 Page 2 of 13
-
8/18/2019 Spanier Mtn Dismiss Binder2
4/117
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
B. Mr. Spanier’s second trial does not begin until well after the Speedy Trial
clock has expired.
The district court declared a mistrial as to the deadlocked counts on May 31, 2013.
The government suggested a retrial date in September of that year. See Exhibit B at
241. Defense counsel stated that he had a prepaid vacation for two weeks starting2
September 21 but if the Court wanted to set the retrial on a different date, including
earlier , he was “at the court’s service.” Id . The government suggested October. Id. at
242. The district judge commented that he thought he had a conference towards the end
of October, and the government stated if “you want to do it on your return, that is fine
with us.” Id . The Court and the parties ultimately decided to set a status conference for
June 10, 2013 to set a trial date. Id . at 243. There was no discussion of the Speedy Trial
Act’s 70-day limit to start the retrial, the complexity of the case, witness issues, or any
parties’ need for additional time to prepare.
At the June 10 hearing, the government confirmed that it planned to retry the case.
The district court initially thought that the parties had discussed a September trial date,
but the government then mentioned late October or early November. See Exhibit C. The
district court suggested the first week of October, but defense counsel reminded the
district court that he was out of town at that time returning October 4 and could try the
case immediately thereafter, as this case was his “first priority” and he would “sweep
everything else aside.” Id . The district court set a retrial date of October 8, 2013 (which
would have been immediately after counsel’s return from a family vacation). Id . Once
again, there was no discussion about the Speedy Trial Act, the complexity of the case, or
any difficulties with setting an earlier date. Two months later, after the Speedy Trial
Mr. Spanier’s references are to the page number used in the excerpts of record2
of his appeal, located at the bottom center of the page.
3 12-CR-00918-JM
Case 3:12-cr-00918-JM Document 445-1 Filed 04/04/16 Page 3 of 13
-
8/18/2019 Spanier Mtn Dismiss Binder2
5/117
-
8/18/2019 Spanier Mtn Dismiss Binder2
6/117
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
detailed these findings on the record since the new Speedy Trial Act clock began to run
earlier this year. However, it is sufficient to detail these previously made-but-not-
announced findings on the record, now, in denying the motion to dismiss.” Id .
C. The government relies on the immunized witness to help secure convictions
against Mr. Spanier.
The second trial commenced on December 10, 2013. See Docket 312. Unlike the
first trial, the government presented the testimony of Manny Bello, a cooperating witness
whose immunized testimony had been secured shortly before the second trial. See
Exhibit E. Bello, who had pled guilty and cooperated with the government in a different
fraud case in the 1990's, testified that he had briefly worked with Argyll as a broker and
then started his own stock lending business. Id. at 112-20. He further testified that he
did a series of stock loans in which Mr. Spanier served as the broker in the 2008-09 time
period. He paid Mr. Spanier a fee shortly after the loans were issued, although his
agreements typically stated that the obligation to pay the fee did not arise until the
termination of the loan. Id. at 121-27. His loan agreements also usually contained
language allowing him to sell the borrowers’ stock, but on at least one occasion in which
Mr. Spanier served as the broker, a borrower negotiated a term prohibiting the sale of the
stock. Id. at 129-31. Bello nonetheless sold a portion of the stock and testified that, on
this occasion, he paid Mr. Spanier his fee when he sold the stock. Id. at 132-37.
Mr. Spanier once again vigorously denied the government’s allegations. As in the
first trial, his defense was that Argyll had duped him as thoroughly as it had duped its
investors. He testified, as before, that he did not know that Argyll sold stock to fund the
loans. This time, the government was able to obtain convictions against Mr. Spanier on
all counts and a special forfeiture verdict that included Mr. Spanier’s family home. See
Docket 323. The Court ultimately sentenced Mr. Spanier to 10 years in prison and
ordered him to pay over $20 million in restitution. See Docket 367.
5 12-CR-00918-JM
Case 3:12-cr-00918-JM Document 445-1 Filed 04/04/16 Page 5 of 13
-
8/18/2019 Spanier Mtn Dismiss Binder2
7/117
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
D. The Ninth Circuit vacates Mr. Spanier’s convictions and sentence.
Mr. Spanier appealed. He argued, inter alia, that the district court had erred in
denying his motion to dismiss based on the violation of the Speedy Trial Act. He noted
that the contemporaneous record showed that the government had requested and
obtained a retrial date beyond the 70 days authorized by the Speedy Trial Act, and that
the district court had compounded the error through post-hoc rationalizations that were
belied by the record. Mr. Spanier argued that the severity of these errors required
dismissal of the indictment with prejudice.
In response, the government argued that the retrial date was delayed because
defense counsel was not available earlier and needed more time to prepare for trial. See
Exhibit F. The government also asserted that time was excluded because of the case’s
complexity, despite the district court’s specific order that limited the complexity
exclusion to a four-month period before the first trial. Id . Lastly, the government
attempted to argue that a delay was needed so that the transcripts of the first trial could
be prepared, for discovery issues to be resolved, and for the Court to address an alleged
issue with the forfeiture of certain property, despite none of these claims finding any
support in the record. Id .
On January 21, 2016, fifteen months after Mr. Spanier filed his opening brief, the
Ninth Circuit reversed his convictions and sentence. See Exhibit G. The Court noted
that “the district court in this case initially relied on the government to set a retrial date in
September, a date outside the 70-day period.” Id . at 3. The Court then rejected each of
the proffered reasons for denying Mr. Spanier’s motion to dismiss. The Court observed
that “the district court’s explanation in denying Spanier’s motion to dismiss, that the
continuances were granted due to case complexity was, unfortunately, insufficient.” Id .
The Court further held that “similarly, the court’s proffered justification that the
continuances were granted due to counsel’s need for time to prepare is belied by the
record.” Id . Indeed, the Court concluded that “regrettably, the district court’s practice in
6 12-CR-00918-JM
Case 3:12-cr-00918-JM Document 445-1 Filed 04/04/16 Page 6 of 13
-
8/18/2019 Spanier Mtn Dismiss Binder2
8/117
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
this case of retroactively characterizing a continuance to justify a violation of the Speedy
Trial Act was inconsistent with the language and policy of the Act.” Id . at 4.
The Court of Appeals remanded for this Court to decide whether the indictment
should be dismissed with or without prejudice. This motion follows.
III.
Discussion
The Speedy Trial Act enumerates three factors to determine whether dismissal
should be with or without prejudice. The Act states: “In determining whether to dismiss
the case with or without prejudice, the court shall consider, among others, each of the
following factors: the seriousness of the offense; the facts and circumstances of the case
which led to the dismissal; and the impact of a reprosecution on the administration of
this chapter and on the administration of justice.” 18 U.S.C. § 3162(a)(2). But there is
no preference for dismissals without prejudice: “[T]he choice of whether to dismiss with
or without prejudice depends on a careful application of the statutorily enumerated
factors to the particular case, there is no presumption in favor of either sanction.” United
States v. Clymer , 25 F.3d 824, 831 (9th Cir. 1994). Here, each of these factors favors
dismissal with prejudice.
A. The seriousness of the offense weighs in Mr. Spanier’s favor based on the
facts of this white-collar case.
The first factor is the seriousness of the offense. It weighs in favor of dismissal
with prejudice. The charges here involve economic crimes, which typically are
considered less serious than others, like violent crime or major drug trafficking. Cf.
U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1. And while the government claims a substantial amount of loss, the
Court recognized at the time of sentencing that the alleged victims were sophisticated
and successful executives, often represented by counsel, who were actually given
millions of dollars in loans; they were generally not particularly vulnerable victims who
were rendered penniless by the defendants’ actions.
7 12-CR-00918-JM
Case 3:12-cr-00918-JM Document 445-1 Filed 04/04/16 Page 7 of 13
-
8/18/2019 Spanier Mtn Dismiss Binder2
9/117
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Moreover, in considering Mr. Spanier’s role in the alleged fraudulent conduct, the
evidence at both trials clearly established that Miceli and McClain were primarily
responsible for Argyll’s scheme. Mr. Spanier simply negotiated with borrowers. In
contrast, Miceli and McClain presided over the numerous Argyll entities, managed the
stock collateral, controlled bank and brokerage accounts, transferred money, drafted the
contracts, defended lawsuits, negotiated settlements, renegotiated loan terms, forgave
interest payments, granted extensions, collected interest payments, and even allowed
certain defaults to be cured. See PSR, Docket 337, at 6-8. Mr. Spanier, even under the
government’s version of events, did none of those things. He spoke with borrowers and
nothing else. Id . Indeed, the jury at Mr. Spanier’s first trial struggled with the issue of
culpability, acquitting him on several counts and deadlocking on the rest. It is for that
reason that the government opted to proceed at the second trial under an omissions
theory of fraud combined with a willful blindness / reckless scienter. See Docket 331 at
28. The government’s evidence showed, at best, that Mr. Spanier had allegedly been put
on notice about Argyll’s fraudulent conduct and decided to turn a blind eye. On balance,
the seriousness of the offense weighs in Mr. Spanier’s favor here.
B. The facts and circumstances that led to the dismissal—and the government’s
litigation positions throughout—overwhelmingly favor dismissal with
prejudice.
The second factor under § 3162(a)(2) also favors dismissal with prejudice. The
record is clear that the government requested and convinced the district court to set a
retrial date beyond the 70 days authorized by statute. It did so because it was interested
in securing an immunized witness to use against Mr. Spanier at trial. See Exhibit D at
141-142. That process caused the retrial to begin approximately four months after the
Speedy Trial clock had expired. In Clymer , 25 F.3d at 832, this Court found that an
improper delay of five months weighed in favor of dismissal with prejudice under the
second factor. This Court also reasoned that the delay in Clymer resulted in actual
8 12-CR-00918-JM
Case 3:12-cr-00918-JM Document 445-1 Filed 04/04/16 Page 8 of 13
-
8/18/2019 Spanier Mtn Dismiss Binder2
10/117
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
prejudice to the defendant. Id. at 832. Here the delay certainly prejudiced Mr. Spanier
by allowing the government to secure a key cooperating witness against him, one that
became a central part of the government’s case-in-chief. See also United States v. Hall ,
181 F.3d 1057, 1063 (9th Cir. 1999) (speedy trial delay prejudiced defendant by
allowing government to secure a cooperating witness).
The government’s conduct during the appeal also weighs in favor of dismissal
with prejudice. Instead of recognizing the district court’s clear violation of the Act, the
government defended the improper post-hoc rationalizations that defied longstanding
Ninth Circuit precedent. For example, the government claimed that the delay was proper
because defense counsel had requested a continuance to prepare for trial. But the record
shows that in response to the government’s request for a September 2013 date (which
was already beyond the 70-day clock), defense counsel specifically stated that he was
only concerned about his pre-paid vacation from September 20 to October 4, 2013, and
that he could do the retrial earlier . See Exhibit B at 241.
Further, the government’s positions contributed to the case remaining on appeal
for 15 months, further exacerbating the original delay. Today, nearly four years will
have elapsed since Mr. Spanier was originally indicted, the last two years of the delay
being directly attributable to the government’s conduct before this Court and the Ninth
Circuit. Dismissal with prejudice is proper in these circumstances. See, e.g., United
States v. Lopez-Avila, 678 F.3d 955, 965-66 (9th Cir. 2012) (misrepresentations of the
record may justify dismissal with prejudice); United States v. Kojayan, 8 F.3d 1315,
1320, 1324-25 (9th Cir. 1993) (government’s continued failure to appreciate violation on
appeal can be basis for dismissal with prejudice).
9 12-CR-00918-JM
Case 3:12-cr-00918-JM Document 445-1 Filed 04/04/16 Page 9 of 13
-
8/18/2019 Spanier Mtn Dismiss Binder2
11/117
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
C. The administration of the Act and of justice heavily favor dismissal with
prejudice.
1. The district court’s post-hoc reasoning in support of an “ends-of- justice”
continuance favor dismissal with prejudice.
The third factor, which considers the impact on the administration of the Act and
the administration of justice, perhaps most strongly weighs in favor of dismissal with
prejudice. In finding that the third factor strongly weighed in favor of dismissal with
prejudice in Clymer , the Ninth Circuit cited the attempt by the district court and the
government to retroactively implement an “ends of justice” continuance in violation of
this Court’s longstanding precedent. The Court explained: “[W]e believe that the Act’s
most severe sanction is appropriate where the surrounding circumstances lead us to
conclude that district courts and United States Attorneys’ offices have failed to recognize
or implement our long-standing precedents.” Clymer , 25 F.3d at 832.
Importantly, in this case, the district court claimed that its post hoc rationalizations
were actually made at the time it granted the continuances, and the government defended
that claim despite the fact that it is defied by the timing of the events and the actual
discussions on the record. If a district court believes that a prosecution should not be
terminated, it can always dismiss the indictment without prejudice in accordance with the
Act. The answer is not to flout the Act and diminish the credibility of the system
through post-hoc rationalization. The Ninth Circuit has held dismissal with prejudice to
be appropriate in similar circumstances— see Clymer, supra —and so it should be here.
2. The lead defendants have suffered devastating consequences while Mr.
Spanier still faces an active SEC civil action.
“Dismissal with prejudice also serves the more general interest in the
administration of justice.” Clymer , 25 F.3d at 833. Like the defendant in Clymer , Mr.
Spanier’s codefendants were more “central participant[s] in the scheme . . . .” Id. at 833.
10 12-CR-00918-JM
Case 3:12-cr-00918-JM Document 445-1 Filed 04/04/16 Page 10 of 13
-
8/18/2019 Spanier Mtn Dismiss Binder2
12/117
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Mr. Spanier was ranked third of the three defendants in the indictment. The lead
defendant, Miceli, committed suicide before trial, and the second defendant, McClain,
received a sentence of 15 years. See Docket 275. Thus, this case has had devastating
consequences for the main participants. Furthermore, Mr. Spanier still faces an active
SEC civil action, which can certainly exact restitution and penalties if justified. There
have already been two criminal trials, and “[t]he administration of justice would be ill-
served by allowing yet another trial and probable appeal at this late date.” Clymer,
supra.
3. The delay has substantially prejudiced Mr. Spanier because of his pretrial
restrictions on liberty.
The Court should also account for the effect of the delay on Mr. Spanier due to his
pretrial restrictions on liberty, which as noted above have now been in place for nearly
four years. As the Supreme Court observed in United States v. Taylor , 487 U.S. 326,
340 (1988), “The longer the delay, the greater the presumptive or actual prejudice to the
defendant, in terms of his ability to prepare for trial or the restrictions on his liberty:
‘“[I]nordinate delay between public charge and trial, ... wholly aside from possible
prejudice to a defense on the merits, may ‘seriously interfere with the defendant’s liberty,
whether he is free on bail or not, and ... may disrupt his employment, drain his financial
resources, curtail his associations, subject him to public obloquy, and create anxiety in
him, his family and his friends.’” Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 537 (1972).”
(Emphasis provided).5
These collateral consequences have taken a heavy toll on Mr. Spanier in this case.
Indeed, “a person facing serious criminal charges is hardly freed from the state’5
control upon his release from a police officer’s physical grip. He is required toappear in court at the state’s command. He is often subject, as in this case, to thecondition that he seek formal permission from the court (at significant expense)
before exercising what would otherwise be his unquestioned right to traveloutside the jurisdiction. Pending prosecution, his employment prospects may bediminished severely, he may suffer reputational harm, and he will experience thefinancial and emotional strain of preparing a defense.” Albright v. Oliver , 510U.S. 266, 278 (1994) (J. Ginsburg, concurring). See also United States v. Biggs419 F.Supp.2d 1277,1283 (D. Montana 2006).
11 12-CR-00918-JM
Case 3:12-cr-00918-JM Document 445-1 Filed 04/04/16 Page 11 of 13
-
8/18/2019 Spanier Mtn Dismiss Binder2
13/117
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
At the start of the case, the government seized Mr. Spanier’s personal bank accounts and
his joint accounts with his wife Regina, which contained the entirety of Mr. Spanier’s
income and savings. Mr. Spanier became indigent and has needed court-appointed
counsel since that time. Those accounts have remained frozen over the last four years.
See e.g., Docket 334. Mr. Spanier has been forced to borrow heavily from friends and
family to meet his daily obligations. His family home is facing foreclosure. He struggles
to make considerable periodic interest payments to the sureties that agreed to guarantee
the substantial bond obligations imposed the Court in this case. See Docket 335. It is
telling that Mr. Spanier has performed flawlessly on pretrial release over the last four
years, despite these significant restrictions on his life and liberty.
Moreover, the damage to Mr. Spanier’s reputation has been substantial. Despite
the fact that he has worked consistently since the start of this case, Mr. Spanier’s
employment prospects have been severely limited by the ongoing and unresolved
litigation in this case. Background checks and internet searches reveal the details of the
case and even the restitution judgment that has now been vacated, creating issues with
potential employers and creditors alike. Finally, the emotional strain of four years of
litigation on Mr. Spanier and his family cannot be underestimated. His children have
grown up wondering whether their father would see them graduate from high school and
college. His wife has had to live with the constant fear of seeing her husband remanded
into custody and losing Mr. Spanier’s physical, emotional, and financial companionship.
For these reasons too, the indictment should be dismissed with prejudice.
IV.
Conclusion
This case involves a clear-cut violation of the Speedy Trial Act. The government
used the delay to secure a key cooperating witness against Mr. Spanier. It then
repeatedly misstated the record on appeal as it attempted to justify the district court’s
post-hoc rationalizations for denying Mr. Spanier’s motion to dismiss. These actions
12 12-CR-00918-JM
Case 3:12-cr-00918-JM Document 445-1 Filed 04/04/16 Page 12 of 13
-
8/18/2019 Spanier Mtn Dismiss Binder2
14/117
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
compounded the original four-month delay into more than twenty months. Mr. Spanier
has been physically, emotionally, and financially prejudiced by these actions. Based on
this record, the government should not be rewarded with a third attempt to secure a
conviction against Mr. Spanier. The public has diminished interest in a third trial, and
even if there is a conviction, another full appeal. The letter and spirit of the Speedy Trial
Act require dismissal of the indictment with prejudice.
Dated: April 4, 2016 Respectfully submitted,
s/ Timothy A. Scott
TIMOTHY A. SCOTTNICOLAS O. JIMENEZ
LAW OFFICES OF TIMOTHY A.SCOTT, APC
Attorneys for Jeffrey Spanier
13 12-CR-00918-JM
Case 3:12-cr-00918-JM Document 445-1 Filed 04/04/16 Page 13 of 13
-
8/18/2019 Spanier Mtn Dismiss Binder2
15/117
EXHIBIT
A
Case 3:12-cr-00918-JM Document 445-2 Filed 04/04/16 Page 1 of 2
-
8/18/2019 Spanier Mtn Dismiss Binder2
16/117
MINUTES
OF THE
UNITED ST TES DISTRICT
OURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF C LIFORNI
U.S.A. vs JAMES T. MICELI
(1) ,
DOUGLAS
MCCLAIN (2),
No.
l2CR09l8-BEN
JEFFREY T. SPANIER (3)
The Court f inds
excludab le
de lay ,
under
the sec t ion ind ica ted by check (
) ,
commenced on and
ended on
3l6l(h)
_ 1) (A)
Exam
or
hrg
for
mental
or
phys ica l incapacity
__
(1)
(8)
Sta te
or
Federa l t r i a l s
o r
other
charges
pending
_ 1)
(C)
Inter locutory appeals
_ 1) (D)
retr ia l motions (from
f lg
to hrg or o the r prompt dispo)
_ 1) (E)
Transfers from other
d i s t r i c t
FRCrP 20 21 40)
_ 1)
(H)
Proceedings under advisement not
to
exceed t h i r t y
days
Misc proc: Parole or prob rev,
depor ta t ion,
extradit ion
__
(1) (F) Transportation from ano ther d i s t r i c t
o r
to/ f rom
examination
o r
h o sp i t a l i z a ti o n i n
t en
days
o r
l e s s
__ (1)
G)
Considera t ion by Court
o f
proposed
plea
agreement
__ (2)
Prosecut ion
deferred by mutual agreement
(3) (A)&(B)
Unavai labi l i ty o f
defendant
or
essent ia l
witness
___
(4)
Per iod
o f
mental or
phys ica l
incompetence
of
defendant
to
s t and
t r i a l
___ (5) Superseding indictment and/or new
charges
(6) Defendant
await ing
t r i a l
o f co-defendant when
no
severance
has been
granted
__
(7)
(A)
(8)
Continuances
granted per
(h)
(7)
-use
"T"
alone
if
more
than
one of the reasons below are
given in
suppor t of
cont inuance
___
(7) (8)
( i ) 1) Fai lu re to
continue
would s top
fu r the r proceedings
o r
r e s u l t in miscarriage o f jus t i ce
-X....(7) (B)
ii)
2)
Case unusual
or complex
_ 7) (B)
iii)
3) Indictment
fo l lowing
a r r e s t cannot be f i l ed
in
t h i r t y (30)
(7) (B) ( iv)
4)
Continuance
granted
in
order to ob ta in o r subst i tu te
counse l o r give reasonab le
t ime
to prepare
___3161(8) (i)
Time up
to
withdrawal o f
gu i l t y plea
__
18:3l61(b)
Grand
jury indictment
t ime
extended
t h i r t y
(30)
more
days
udge s I n i t i a l s
Case 3:12-cr-00918-BEN Document 94 Filed 09/25/12 Page 1 of 1
260
Case: 14-50306, 10/22/2014, ID: 9287250, DktEntry: 10-2, Page 262 of 276
(346 of 5
Case 3:12-cr-00918-JM Document 445-2 Filed 04/04/16 Page 2 of 2
-
8/18/2019 Spanier Mtn Dismiss Binder2
17/117
EXHIBIT
B
Case 3:12-cr-00918-JM Document 445-3 Filed 04/04/16 Page 1 of 24
-
8/18/2019 Spanier Mtn Dismiss Binder2
18/117
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
PLAINTIFF,
V.
DOUGLAS MC CLAIN AND JEFFREY
SPANIER,
DEFENDANTS.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
NO. 12-CR-0918
MAY 31, 2013
2:38 P.M.
SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA
TRANSCRIPT OF JURY TRIAL, DAY 12
BEFORE THE HONORABLE ROGER T. BENITEZ
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
APPEARANCES:
FOR THE PLAINTIFF: U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
BY: MICHAEL WHEAT, ESQ.
BY: FAITH DEVINE, ESQ.BY: JENNIFER GMITRO, ESQ.
880 FRONT STREET, ROOM 6293
SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92101
FOR THE DEFENDANT: LAW OFFICES OF MARK F. ADAMS
BY: MARK F. ADAMS, ESQ.
964 FIFTH AVENUE, SUITE 335
SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92101
FOR THE DEFENDANT: LAW OFFICE OF TIMOTHY A. SCOTT
BY: TIMOTHY A. SCOTT, ESQ.
1350 COLUMBIA STREET, SUITE 600SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92101
COURT REPORTER: DEBORAH M. O'CONNELL, RPR, CSR
333 W. BROADWAY, ROOM 420
SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA, 92101
REPORTED BY STENOTYPE, TRANSCRIBED BY COMPUTER
222
Case: 14-50306, 10/22/2014, ID: 9287250, DktEntry: 10-2, Page 224 of 276
(308 of 5
Case 3:12-cr-00918-JM Document 445-3 Filed 04/04/16 Page 2 of 24
-
8/18/2019 Spanier Mtn Dismiss Binder2
19/117
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
2
I N D E X
PAGE
VERDICT 8
223
Case: 14-50306, 10/22/2014, ID: 9287250, DktEntry: 10-2, Page 225 of 276
(309 of 5
Case 3:12-cr-00918-JM Document 445-3 Filed 04/04/16 Page 3 of 24
-
8/18/2019 Spanier Mtn Dismiss Binder2
20/117
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
3
SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA, MAY 31, 2013, 2:38 P.M.
* * * *
THE COURT: GOOD AFTERNOON. THE RECORD SHOULD
REFLECT WE'RE OUTSIDE THE PRESENCE OF THE JURY. MR. SPANIER
AND MR. MC CLAIN ARE PRESENT. BOTH COUNSEL ARE PRESENT.
GOVERNMENT IS PRESENT. DEFENSE COUNSEL IS PRESENT.
COUNSEL, I HAVE TWO QUESTIONS FROM THE JURY. THE FIRST
QUESTION IS AS FOLLOWS: IF WE DECIDE THAT THE JURY IS HUNG ON
SOME OR ALL OF THE COUNTS, PLEASE ADVISE HOW WE ARE TO COMPLETE
THE FORM.
MY THOUGHT ON THAT IS TO TELL THEM, COMPLETE THE FORM IF
YOU HAVE REACHED A VERDICT ON ANY OF THE COUNTS, INDICATE WHAT
YOUR VERDICT IS, DO NOT FILL IN THE BLANKS ON THE OTHERS, AND
LET US KNOW THAT YOU'RE HUNG ON THE REMAINING COUNTS.
MR. SCOTT: I AGREE.
MR. ADAMS: I AGREE, YOUR HONOR. THANK YOU.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THAT WAS THE EASY ONE.
THEY ALSO SENT THE FOLLOWING QUESTION: WE INITIALLY ASKED
YOU IF THE 5 PERCENT BACK-END FEE SHOULD BE DISCLOSED. YOU
TOLD US YES, IF -- "IF" IS UNDERLINED -- THERE WAS A FIDUCIARY
RELATIONSHIP. YOU SAID IT WAS UP TO US, THE JURY, TO DECIDE IF
THERE WAS A FIDUCIARY RELATIONSHIP. WE HAVE DECIDED IF THERE
WAS A FIDUCIARY RELATIONSHIP. NOW WE NEED RE-INSTRUCTION ON
WHAT IS MATERIAL.
224
Case: 14-50306, 10/22/2014, ID: 9287250, DktEntry: 10-2, Page 226 of 276
(310 of 5
Case 3:12-cr-00918-JM Document 445-3 Filed 04/04/16 Page 4 of 24
-
8/18/2019 Spanier Mtn Dismiss Binder2
21/117
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
4
SO I DID A LITTLE QUICK RESEARCH, AND THE BEST THAT I
COULD COME UP WITH IS AS FOLLOWS: THE MOST COMMON FORMULATION
FOR WHAT IS MATERIAL IS THAT A CONCEALMENT OR MISREPRESENTATION
IS MATERIAL IF IT HAS A NATURAL TENDENCY TO INFLUENCE OR WAS
CAPABLE OF INFLUENCING THE DECISION OF THE PARTIES, OR THE
PERSON TO WHOM IT WAS ADDRESSED.
ANYBODY HAVE ANY OBJECTION TO MY TELLING THE JURY THAT?
IF NOT --
MS. DEVINE: WE THINK THAT IS A CORRECT STATE OF THE
LAW, AND I THINK IT IS IN THE JURY INSTRUCTION ALREADY.
THE COURT: IS IT? I LOOKED FOR IT. I PROBABLY
MISSED IT. SO DIRECT ME TO --
MS. DEVINE: I THINK IT WOULD BE UNDER THE MAIL
FRAUD. IT WILL SAY -- DO YOU HAVE THAT?
THE COURT: DIRECT ME TO THAT. I PROBABLY JUST WENT
THROUGH IT TOO FAST.
MS. DEVINE: IF YOU GO TO 8.101.
MR. WHEAT: THAT'S THE OLD INSTRUCTION.
MS. DEVINE: ON THE THIRD ELEMENT, WHERE IT TALKS --
THE COURT: WAIT. 8.101. I HAVE THE OLD MANUAL, SO
I DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS CONSISTENT WITH THE INSTRUCTION THAT I
GAVE.
MS. DEVINE: IT IS GOING TO BE THE MAIL FRAUD.
MR. WHEAT: THIRD ELEMENT.
MS. DEVINE: IT'S THE THIRD ELEMENT, WHERE IT SAYS
225
Case: 14-50306, 10/22/2014, ID: 9287250, DktEntry: 10-2, Page 227 of 276
(311 of 5
Case 3:12-cr-00918-JM Document 445-3 Filed 04/04/16 Page 5 of 24
-
8/18/2019 Spanier Mtn Dismiss Binder2
22/117
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
5
THIRD, THE PROMISES OR STATEMENTS THAT WERE MATERIAL, THAT IS,
THEY WOULD REASONABLY INFLUENCE A PERSON TO PART WITH MONEY OR
PROPERTY. SO I THINK THAT --
THE COURT: I'M SORRY, WHAT WAS THAT INSTRUCTION?
WHAT NUMBER?
MR. WHEAT: WE HAVE THE OLD BOOK, TOO. 8.101.
THE COURT: GLENN, PRINT THAT OUT. I SENT THE ONLY
COPY I HAD INTO THE JURY. I'LL TELL YOU WHAT. READ IT TO ME
AND I'LL -- DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY PROBLEMS WITH MY USING THE
NINTH CIRCUIT ON THAT?
MR. SCOTT: ON MATERIALITY?
THE COURT: YEAH.
MR. SCOTT: I DON'T. BUT I DO WANT THE RECORD TO
REFLECT MY EARLIER OBJECTIONS AND RECORD AS TO THE FIDUCIARY
ISSUE.
THE COURT: I THOUGHT YOU WERE THE ONE THAT WANTED ME
TO GIVE THE FIDUCIARY INSTRUCTION?
MR. SCOTT: INITIALLY, UNTIL THE GOVERNMENT DISAVOWED
AND SAID THEY WERE ONLY DOING AFFIRMATIVE MISREPRESENTATION.
AND THEN I SAID WE OUGHT TO INSTRUCT THEM THAT THERE IS NOT A
FIDUCIARY BASED ON THE GOVERNMENT'S POSITION AND ON THE STATE
OF THE RECORD.
THE COURT: OKAY. MR. ADAMS?
MR. ADAMS: ME, TOO, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: OKAY. ALL RIGHT. DO ME A FAVOR, BRING
226
Case: 14-50306, 10/22/2014, ID: 9287250, DktEntry: 10-2, Page 228 of 276
(312 of 5
Case 3:12-cr-00918-JM Document 445-3 Filed 04/04/16 Page 6 of 24
-
8/18/2019 Spanier Mtn Dismiss Binder2
23/117
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
6
THE JURY IN.
(JURY ENTERS COURTROOM.)
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. WELCOME BACK.
LET'S SEE, I HAVE A QUESTION FROM YOU THAT SAYS, WE
INITIALLY ASKED YOU IF THE 5 PERCENT BACK-END FEE SHOULD BE
DISCLOSED, AND YOU TOLD US YES IF THERE WAS A FIDUCIARY
RELATIONSHIP. YOU SAID IT WAS UP TO US, THE JURY, TO DECIDE IF
THERE WAS A FIDUCIARY RELATIONSHIP. WE HAVE DECIDED IF THERE
WAS A FIDUCIARY RELATIONSHIP. NOW WE NEED REINSTRUCTION ON
WHAT IS MATERIAL.
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, I GAVE YOU AN INSTRUCTION, I
BELIEVE, ON -- ENTITLED "MAIL FRAUD." AND IF YOU LOOK AT THAT
INSTRUCTION, YOU WILL SEE THAT IT SAYS THE FOLLOWING: PROMISES
OR STATEMENTS WERE MATERIAL IF THEY WOULD REASONABLY INFLUENCE
A PERSON TO PART WITH MONEY OR WITH PROPERTY. OKAY.
SO THAT IS -- SO THAT IS THE DEFINITION OF "MATERIALITY."
NOW THEN, YOU ALSO ASKED ME THE QUESTION, IF WE DECIDE
THAT THE JURY IS HUNG ON SOME OR ALL OF THE COUNTS, PLEASE
ADVISE -- PLEASE ADVISE HOW TO COMPLETE THE FORM.
WELL, IF THAT IS THE CASE, THEN YOU SHOULD FILL OUT THE
FORM AS TO THOSE COUNTS THAT YOU HAVE REACHED A VERDICT, JUST
AS I INSTRUCTED YOU A FEW DAYS AGO.
AS TO THOSE YOU MAY NOT BE ABLE TO REACH A VERDICT ON,
LEAVE THE SPACE BLANK WHERE IT SAYS, WE THE JURY FIND THE
DEFENDANT GUILTY/NOT GUILTY. LEAVE IT BLANK. AND GIVE US A
227
Case: 14-50306, 10/22/2014, ID: 9287250, DktEntry: 10-2, Page 229 of 276
(313 of 5
Case 3:12-cr-00918-JM Document 445-3 Filed 04/04/16 Page 7 of 24
-
8/18/2019 Spanier Mtn Dismiss Binder2
24/117
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
7
NOTE THAT SAYS, WE REACHED A VERDICT ON SOME OF THE COUNTS, ARE
UNABLE TO REACH A VERDICT ON THE OTHER COUNTS. OKAY.
AND ONCE YOU'VE DONE THAT, IF YOU WOULD PLEASE RING THE
BUZZER AND LET MY BAILIFF KNOW, AND WE'LL TAKE CARE OF THAT.
IF THERE IS ANYTHING ELSE THAT I CAN DO TO HELP YOU,
PLEASE LET US KNOW. THANK YOU.
(JURY ENTERS DELIBERATION ROOM.)
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT, COUNSEL, WE'LL LET YOU KNOW
WHEN WE HEAR FROM THEM. WE'RE IN RECESS.
MR. ADAMS: YOUR HONOR, WILL THE JURY BE EXCUSED AT
4:00 TODAY?
THE COURT: YEAH, THEY WANTED TO BE EXCUSED AT 4:00.
SOMEBODY HAS A GRADUATION OR SOMETHING TO GO TO. WHEN IT GETS
PRETTY CLOSE TO 4:00, IF THEY HAVEN'T REACHED A VERDICT, I'LL
BRING THEM IN HERE, GIVE THEM THE ADMONITION FOR OVER THE
WEEKEND, AND HAVE THEM COME BACK MONDAY MORNING, AT 9:00 A.M.
MR. ADAMS: DID YOU WANT US HERE AT 4:00, THEN?
THE COURT: IT'S UP TO YOU. I DON'T NEED YOU, BUT IF
YOU WANT TO BE HERE, YOU'RE WELCOME TO BE HERE.
(RECESS TAKEN.)
THE CLERK: REMAIN SEATED AND COME TO ORDER. COURT
IS ONCE AGAIN IN SESSION.
THE COURT: OKAY. THE RECORD SHOULD REFLECT THAT
MR. SPANIER AND MR. MC CLAIN ARE PRESENT. COUNSEL IS PRESENT.
GOVERNMENT IS PRESENT.
228
Case: 14-50306, 10/22/2014, ID: 9287250, DktEntry: 10-2, Page 230 of 276
(314 of 5
Case 3:12-cr-00918-JM Document 445-3 Filed 04/04/16 Page 8 of 24
-
8/18/2019 Spanier Mtn Dismiss Binder2
25/117
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
8
I HAVE A NOTE. THE NOTE SAYS: JUDGE, THE JURY HAS
COMPLETED ITS DELIBERATIONS.
I'M NOT SURE EXACTLY WHAT THAT MEANS. BUT I SUSPECT THEY
HAVE EITHER REACHED A VERDICT OR VERDICTS OR DECIDED THAT THEY
CANNOT REACH A VERDICT OR VERDICTS.
DOES ANYONE HAVE ANYTHING THAT WE NEED TO TALK ABOUT
BEFORE I BRING THEM IN? NO? OKAY.
BONNIE, CRAIG, PLEASE BRING THE JURY IN.
(JURY ENTERS COURTROOM.)
THE COURT: OKAY. WELL, WELCOME BACK, LADIES AND
GENTLEMEN. I HAVE A NOTE THAT SAYS, THE JURY HAS COMPLETED ITS
DELIBERATIONS.
IF YOU WOULD PLEASE DO ME A FAVOR, DELIVER THE ENVELOPE TO
MY BAILIFF, WHO WILL THEN HAND IT TO ME.
BONNIE, IF YOU WOULD DO ME A FAVOR, PLEASE TAKE THAT FROM
THE FOREPERSON.
VERDICT
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MR. MC CLAIN, IF YOU WOULD DO
ME A FAVOR, PLEASE STAND. I'LL HAVE MY COURTROOM DEPUTY READ
THE VERDICT.
THE CLERK: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, SOUTHERN
DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF,
VS. DOUGLAS MC CLAIN, JR., DEFENDANT, CASE NO. 12-CR-0918-BEN.
VERDICT: AS TO COUNT 1 OF THE INDICTMENT, WE THE JURY IN THE
ABOVE-ENTITLED CAUSE FIND THE DEFENDANT DOUGLAS MC CLAIN, JR.
229
Case: 14-50306, 10/22/2014, ID: 9287250, DktEntry: 10-2, Page 231 of 276
(315 of 5
Case 3:12-cr-00918-JM Document 445-3 Filed 04/04/16 Page 9 of 24
-
8/18/2019 Spanier Mtn Dismiss Binder2
26/117
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
9
GUILTY OF CONSPIRACY, IN VIOLATION OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES
CODE, SECTION 371.
AS TO COUNT 2 OF THE INDICTMENT, WE THE JURY IN THE
ABOVE-ENTITLED CAUSE, FIND THE DEFENDANT DOUGLAS MC CLAIN, JR.
GUILTY OF MAIL FRAUD, AND AIDING AND ABETTING, IN VIOLATION OF
TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 1341, AND TITLE 18,
UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 2.
AS TO COUNT 3 OF THE INDICTMENTS, WE THE JURY IN THE
ABOVE-ENTITLED CAUSE FIND THE DEFENDANT DOUGLAS MC CLAIN, JR.
GUILTY OF MAIL FRAUD, AND AIDING AND ABETTING, IN VIOLATION OF
TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 1341, AND TITLE 18,
UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 2.
AS TO COUNT 4 OF THE INDICTMENT, WE THE JURY IN THE
ABOVE-ENTITLED CAUSE, FIND THE DEFENDANT DOUGLAS MC CLAIN, JR.
GUILTY OF MAIL FRAUD, AND AIDING AND ABETTING, IN VIOLATION OF
TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 1341, TITLE 18, UNITED
STATES CODE, SECTION 2.
AS TO COUNT 5 OF THE INDICTMENT, WE THE JURY IN THE
ABOVE-ENTITLED CAUSE FIND THE DEFENDANT DOUGLAS MC CLAIN, JR.
GUILTY OF MAIL FRAUD, AND AIDING AND ABETTING, IN VIOLATION OF
TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 1341, AND TITLE 18,
UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 2.
AS TO COUNT 6 OF THE INDICTMENT, WE THE JURY IN THE
ABOVE-ENTITLED CAUSE FIND THE DEFENDANT DOUGLAS MC CLAIN, JR.
GUILTY OF MAIL FRAUD, AND AIDING AND ABETTING, IN VIOLATION OF
230
Case: 14-50306, 10/22/2014, ID: 9287250, DktEntry: 10-2, Page 232 of 276
(316 of 5
Case 3:12-cr-00918-JM Document 445-3 Filed 04/04/16 Page 10 of 24
-
8/18/2019 Spanier Mtn Dismiss Binder2
27/117
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
10
TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 1341, AND TITLE 18,
UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 2.
AS TO COUNT 7 OF THE INDICTMENT, WE THE JURY IN THE
ABOVE-ENTITLED CAUSE FIND THE DEFENDANT DOUGLAS MC CLAIN, JR.
GUILTY OF MAIL FRAUD, AND AIDING AND ABETTING, IN VIOLATION OF
TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 1341, AND TITLE 18,
UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 2.
AS TO COUNT 8 OF THE INDICTMENT, WE THE JURY IN THE
ABOVE-ENTITLED CAUSE FIND THE DEFENDANT DOUGLAS MC CLAIN, JR.
GUILTY OF MAIL FRAUD, AND AIDING AND ABETTING, IN VIOLATION OF
TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 1341, AND TITLE 18,
UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 2.
AS TO COUNT 9 OF THE INDICTMENT, WE THE JURY IN THE
ABOVE-ENTITLED CAUSE FIND THE DEFENDANT DOUGLAS MC CLAIN, JR.
GUILTY OF WIRE FRAUD, AND AIDING AND ABETTING, IN VIOLATION OF
TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 1343, AND TITLE 18,
UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 2.
AS TO COUNT 10 OF THE INDICTMENT, WE THE JURY IN THE
ABOVE-ENTITLED CAUSE FIND THE DEFENDANT DOUGLAS MC CLAIN, JR.
GUILTY OF WIRE FRAUD, AND AIDING AND ABETTING, IN VIOLATION OF
TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 1343, AND TITLE 18,
UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 2.
AS TO COUNT 11 OF THE INDICTMENT, WE THE JURY IN THE
ABOVE-ENTITLED CAUSE FIND THE DEFENDANT DOUGLAS MC CLAIN, JR.
GUILTY OF WIRE FRAUD, AND AIDING AND ABETTING, IN VIOLATION OF
231
Case: 14-50306, 10/22/2014, ID: 9287250, DktEntry: 10-2, Page 233 of 276
(317 of 5
Case 3:12-cr-00918-JM Document 445-3 Filed 04/04/16 Page 11 of 24
-
8/18/2019 Spanier Mtn Dismiss Binder2
28/117
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
11
TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 1343, AND TITLE 18,
UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 2.
AS TO COUNT 12 OF THE INDICTMENT, WE THE JURY IN THE
ABOVE-ENTITLED CAUSE, FIND THE DEFENDANT DOUGLAS MC CLAIN, JR.
GUILTY OF WIRE FRAUD, AND AIDING AND ABETTING, IN VIOLATION OF
TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 1343, TITLE 18, UNITED
STATES CODE, SECTION 2.
AS TO COUNT 13 OF THE INDICTMENT, WE THE JURY IN THE
ABOVE-ENTITLED CAUSE FIND THE DEFENDANT DOUGLAS MC CLAIN, JR.
GUILTY OF WIRE FRAUD, AND AIDING AND ABETTING, IN VIOLATION OF
TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 1343, AND TITLE 18,
UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 2.
AS TO COUNT 14 OF THE INDICTMENT, WE THE JURY IN THE
ABOVE-ENTITLED CAUSE FIND THE DEFENDANT DOUGLAS MC CLAIN, JR.
GUILTY OF WIRE FRAUD, AND AIDING AND ABETTING, IN VIOLATION OF
TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 1343, AND TITLE 18,
UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 2.
AS TO COUNT 15 OF THE INDICTMENT, WE THE JURY IN THE
ABOVE-ENTITLED CAUSE FIND THE DEFENDANT DOUGLAS MC CLAIN, JR.
GUILTY OF WIRE FRAUD, AND AIDING AND ABETTING, IN VIOLATION OF
TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 1343, AND TITLE 18,
UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 2.
AS TO COUNT 16 OF THE INDICTMENT, WE THE JURY IN THE
ABOVE-ENTITLED CAUSE FIND THE DEFENDANT DOUGLAS MC CLAIN, JR.
GUILTY OF WIRE FRAUD, AND AIDING AND ABETTING, IN VIOLATION OF
232
Case: 14-50306, 10/22/2014, ID: 9287250, DktEntry: 10-2, Page 234 of 276
(318 of 5
Case 3:12-cr-00918-JM Document 445-3 Filed 04/04/16 Page 12 of 24
-
8/18/2019 Spanier Mtn Dismiss Binder2
29/117
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
12
TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 1343, AND TITLE 18,
UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 2.
AS TO COUNT 17 OF THE INDICTMENT, WE THE JURY IN THE
ABOVE-ENTITLED CAUSE FIND THE DEFENDANT DOUGLAS MC CLAIN, JR.
GUILTY OF WIRE FRAUD, AND AIDING AND ABETTING, IN VIOLATION OF
TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 1343, AND TITLE 18,
UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 2.
AS TO COUNT 18 OF THE INDICTMENT, WE THE JURY IN THE
ABOVE-ENTITLED CAUSE FIND THE DEFENDANT DOUGLAS MC CLAIN, JR.
GUILTY OF WIRE FRAUD, AND AIDING AND ABETTING, IN VIOLATION OF
TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 1343, AND TITLE 18,
UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 2.
AS TO COUNT 19 OF THE INDICTMENT, WE THE JURY IN THE
ABOVE-ENTITLED CAUSE FIND THE DEFENDANT DOUGLAS MC CLAIN, JR.
GUILTY OF WIRE FRAUD, AND AIDING AND ABETTING, IN VIOLATION OF
TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 1343, AND TITLE 18,
UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 2.
AS TO COUNT 20 OF THE INDICTMENT, WE THE JURY IN THE
ABOVE-ENTITLED CAUSE FIND THE DEFENDANT DOUGLAS MC CLAIN, JR.
GUILTY OF WIRE FRAUD, AND AIDING AND ABETTING, VIOLATION OF
TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 1343, AND TITLE 18,
UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 2.
AS TO COUNT 21 OF THE INDICTMENT, WE THE JURY IN THE
ABOVE-ENTITLED CAUSE FIND OF THE DEFENDANT DOUGLAS MC CLAIN,
JR. GUILTY OF WIRE FRAUD, AND AIDING AND ABETTING, IN VIOLATION
233
Case: 14-50306, 10/22/2014, ID: 9287250, DktEntry: 10-2, Page 235 of 276
(319 of 5
Case 3:12-cr-00918-JM Document 445-3 Filed 04/04/16 Page 13 of 24
-
8/18/2019 Spanier Mtn Dismiss Binder2
30/117
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
13
OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 1343, AND TITLE 18,
UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 2.
AS TO COUNT 22 OF THE INDICTMENT, WE THE JURY IN THE
ABOVE-ENTITLED CAUSE FIND THE DEFENDANT DOUGLAS MC CLAIN, JR.
GUILTY OF WIRE FRAUD, AND AIDING AND ABETTING, IN VIOLATION OF
TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 1343, AND TITLE 18,
UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 2.
AS TO COUNT 23 OF THE INDICTMENT, WE THE JURY IN THE
ABOVE-ENTITLED CAUSE FIND OF THE DEFENDANT DOUGLAS MC CLAIN,
JR. GUILTY OF WIRE FRAUD, AND AIDING AND ABETTING, IN VIOLATION
OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 1343, AND TITLE 18,
UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 2.
AS TO COUNT 24 OF THE INDICTMENT, WE THE JURY IN THE
ABOVE-ENTITLED CAUSE, FIND THE DEFENDANT DOUGLAS MC CLAIN, JR.
GUILTY OF SECURITIES FRAUD, IN VIOLATION OF TITLE 15, UNITED
STATES CODE, SECTION 78(J)(B) AND 78(F)(F).
AS TO COUNT 33 OF THE INDICTMENT, WE THE JURY IN THE
ABOVE-ENTITLED CAUSE FIND OF THE DEFENDANT DOUGLAS MC CLAIN,
JR. GUILTY OF MONEY LAUNDERING, AND AIDING AND ABETTING, IN
VIOLATION OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 1957, AND
TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 2.
AS TO COUNT 34 OF THE INDICTMENT, WE THE JURY IN THE
ABOVE-ENTITLED CAUSE FIND THE DEFENDANT DOUGLAS MC CLAIN, JR.
GUILTY OF MONEY LAUNDERING, AND AIDING AND ABETTING, IN
VIOLATION OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 1957, AND
234
Case: 14-50306, 10/22/2014, ID: 9287250, DktEntry: 10-2, Page 236 of 276
(320 of 5
Case 3:12-cr-00918-JM Document 445-3 Filed 04/04/16 Page 14 of 24
-
8/18/2019 Spanier Mtn Dismiss Binder2
31/117
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
14
TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 2.
AS TO COUNT 35 OF THE INDICTMENT, WE THE JURY IN THE
ABOVE-ENTITLED CAUSE FIND THE DEFENDANT DOUGLAS MC CLAIN, JR.
GUILTY OF MONEY LAUNDERING, AND AIDING AND ABETTING, IN
VIOLATION OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 1957,
TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 2.
DATED MAY 31, 2013, SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA. SIGNED KENNETH
PAKENE, FOREPERSON OF THE JURY.
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN OF THE JURY, ARE THESE YOUR VERDICTS
AS PRESENTED AND READ AS TO THE DEFENDANT DOUGLAS MC CLAIN,
JR., SO SAY YOU ALL.
JURORS: YES.
THE COURT: MR. ADAMS, DO YOU WISH THE JURY POLLED?
MR. ADAMS: YES, SIR, I DO.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT, IF YOU'D PLEASE BE SEATED.
THE CLERK: JUROR NO. 1, ARE THESE YOUR VERDICTS AS
PRESENTED AND READ?
JUROR NO. 1: YES.
THE CLERK: JUROR NO. 2, ARE THESE YOUR VERDICTS AS
PRESENTED AND READ?
JUROR NO. 2: YES.
THE CLERK: JUROR NO. 3, ARE THESE YOUR VERDICTS AS
PRESENTED AND READ?
JUROR NO. 3: YES.
THE CLERK: JUROR NO. 4, ARE THESE YOUR VERDICTS AS
235
Case: 14-50306, 10/22/2014, ID: 9287250, DktEntry: 10-2, Page 237 of 276
(321 of 5
Case 3:12-cr-00918-JM Document 445-3 Filed 04/04/16 Page 15 of 24
-
8/18/2019 Spanier Mtn Dismiss Binder2
32/117
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
15
PRESENTED AND READ?
JUROR NO. 4: YES.
THE CLERK: JUROR NO. 8, ARE THESE YOUR VERDICTS AS
PRESENTED AND READ?
JUROR NO. 8: YES.
THE CLERK: JUROR NO. 9, ARE THESE YOUR VERDICTS AS
PRESENTED AND READ?
JUROR NO. 9: YES.
THE CLERK: JUROR NO. 15, ARE THESE YOUR VERDICTS AS
PRESENTED AND READ?
JUROR NO. 15: YES.
THE CLERK: JUROR NO. 21, ARE THESE YOUR VERDICTS AS
PRESENTED AND READ?
JUROR NO. 21: YES.
THE CLERK: JUROR NO. 22, ARE THESE YOUR VERDICTS AS
PRESENTED AND READ?
JUROR NO. 22: YES.
THE CLERK: JUROR NO. 23, ARE THESE YOUR VERDICTS AS
PRESENTED AND READ?
JUROR NO. 23: YES.
THE CLERK: JUROR NO. 26, ARE THESE YOUR VERDICTS AS
PRESENTED AND READ?
JUROR NO. 26: YES.
THE CLERK: JUROR NO. 29, ARE THESE YOUR VERDICTS AS
PRESENTED AND READ?
236
Case: 14-50306, 10/22/2014, ID: 9287250, DktEntry: 10-2, Page 238 of 276
(322 of 5
Case 3:12-cr-00918-JM Document 445-3 Filed 04/04/16 Page 16 of 24
-
8/18/2019 Spanier Mtn Dismiss Binder2
33/117
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
16
JUROR NO. 29: YES.
THE CLERK: YOUR HONOR, THE JURY HAS BEEN POLLED.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MR. SPANIER, IF YOU WOULD
PLEASE RISE.
GLENN, IF YOU WOULD PLEASE READ THE VERDICTS THAT WERE
REACHED.
THE CLERK: YES, YOUR HONOR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF
CALIFORNIA, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF, VS. JEFFREY T.
SPANIER, DEFENDANT, CASE NO. 12-CR-0918-BEN. VERDICT: AS TO
COUNT 7 OF THE INDICTMENT, WE THE JURY IN THE ABOVE-ENTITLED
CAUSE FIND THE DEFENDANT JEFFREY T. SPANIER NOT GUILTY OF MAIL
FRAUD, AND AIDING AND ABETTING, IN VIOLATION OF TITLE 18,
UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 1341, AND TITLE 18, UNITED STATES
CODE, SECTION 2.
AS TO COUNT 9 OF THE INDICTMENT, WE THE JURY IN THE
ABOVE-ENTITLED CAUSE FIND THE DEFENDANT JEFFREY T. SPANIER NOT
GUILTY OF WIRE FRAUD, AND AIDING AND ABETTING, IN VIOLATION OF
TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 1343, AND TITLE 18,
UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 2.
AS TO COUNT 11 OF THE INDICTMENT, WE THE JURY IN THE
ABOVE-ENTITLED CAUSE FIND THE DEFENDANT JEFFREY T. SPANIER NOT
GUILTY OF WIRE FRAUD, AND AIDING AND ABETTING, IN VIOLATION OF
TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 1343, AND TITLE 18,
UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 2.
237
Case: 14-50306, 10/22/2014, ID: 9287250, DktEntry: 10-2, Page 239 of 276
(323 of 5
Case 3:12-cr-00918-JM Document 445-3 Filed 04/04/16 Page 17 of 24
-
8/18/2019 Spanier Mtn Dismiss Binder2
34/117
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
17
AS TO COUNT 12 OF THE INDICTMENT, WE THE JURY IN THE
ABOVE-ENTITLED CAUSE FIND THE DEFENDANT JEFFREY T. SPANIER NOT
GUILTY OF WIRE FRAUD, AND AIDING AND ABETTING, IN VIOLATION OF
TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 1343, AND TITLE 18,
UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 2.
AS TO COUNT 14 OF THE INDICTMENT, WE THE JURY IN THE
ABOVE-ENTITLED CAUSE FIND THE DEFENDANT JEFFREY T. SPANIER NOT
GUILTY OF WIRE FRAUD, AND AIDING AND ABETTING, IN VIOLATION OF
TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 1343, AND TITLE 18,
UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 2.
AS TO COUNT 18 OF THE INDICTMENT, WE THE JURY IN THE
ABOVE-ENTITLED CAUSE FIND THE DEFENDANT JEFFREY T. SPANIER NOT
GUILTY OF WIRE FRAUD, AND AIDING AND ABETTING, IN VIOLATION OF
TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 1343, AND TITLE 18,
UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 2.
DATED MAY 31, 2013, SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA, SIGNED KENNETH
PAKENE, FOREPERSON OF THE JURY.
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN OF THE JURY, ARE THESE YOUR VERDICTS
AS PRESENTED AND READ AS TO THE DEFENDANT JEFFREY T. SPANIER,
SO SAY YOU ALL?
JURORS: YES.
THE COURT: MR. SCOTT, DO YOU WANT THE JURY POLLED?
MR. SCOTT: NO THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: THANK YOU. YOU MAY BE SEATED.
DOES THE GOVERNMENT WANT THE JURY POLLED?
238
Case: 14-50306, 10/22/2014, ID: 9287250, DktEntry: 10-2, Page 240 of 276
(324 of 5
Case 3:12-cr-00918-JM Document 445-3 Filed 04/04/16 Page 18 of 24
-
8/18/2019 Spanier Mtn Dismiss Binder2
35/117
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
18
MS. DEVINE: NO, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. WELL, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN,
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I HAVE SOME GOOD NEWS AND SOME BAD NEWS
TO GIVE YOU. HERE IS THE GOOD NEWS. THE GOOD NEWS IS THAT YOU
SAID YOU WANTED TO BE OUT OF HERE BY 4:00 TODAY, AND I'M GOING
TO BE PRETTY CLOSE TO THAT.
NOW THE BAD NEWS IS THAT I'M GOING TO ASK THAT YOU COME
BACK ON TUESDAY MORNING, AT 9:00 A.M. THERE IS A SECOND
PORTION OF THIS CASE THAT HAS TO BE TRIED BEFORE YOU THAT COULD
NOT BE TRIED AT THE SAME TIME AS THE FIRST PART OF THE CASE.
SO WHEN YOU COME BACK ON TUESDAY MORNING, YOU WILL BE HEARING I
SUSPECT RELATIVELY BRIEF EVIDENCE. THE ATTORNEYS WILL THEN
DELIVER SUBSEQUENT CLOSING ARGUMENTS, AND THEN WE WILL SEND YOU
BACK FOR DELIBERATIONS, OKAY.
WITH THAT, I DO WANT TO REMIND YOU, IT IS EXTREMELY
IMPORTANT THAT YOU NOT DISCUSS THE CASE AMONG YOURSELVES, OR
WITH ANYONE, AFTER THIS, AFTER I LET YOU GO. OKAY.
PLEASE DO NOT DO ANY RESEARCH. DO NOT BLOG. DO NOT
TWITTER. DO NOT FACEBOOK. DON'T GO LOOKING ON THE INTERNET.
DON'T GO READING ANY NEWS ACCOUNTS OF THE CASE OR LISTENING TO
ANY NEWS REPORTS OF THE CASE.
PLEASE CONTINUE TO HAVE AN OPEN MIND, OKAY.
SO WITH THAT, I'M GOING TO SEND YOU HOME. AND AGAIN, I
WOULD ASK THAT YOU BE OUT THERE PROMPTLY AT 9:00 ON -- I'M
SORRY, WAIT, I HAVE SOMETHING ON TUESDAY. WHAT TIME?
239
Case: 14-50306, 10/22/2014, ID: 9287250, DktEntry: 10-2, Page 241 of 276
(325 of 5
Case 3:12-cr-00918-JM Document 445-3 Filed 04/04/16 Page 19 of 24
-
8/18/2019 Spanier Mtn Dismiss Binder2
36/117
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
19
THE CLERK: 9:00 AND 9:30.
THE COURT: I'LL ASK YOU TO BE BACK AT 10:00, NOT
9:00, OKAY. 10:00 ON TUESDAY. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.
COUNSEL, IF YOU'D PLEASE REMAIN.
(JURY EXITS COURTROOM.)
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT, I BELIEVE THAT ALL JURORS HAVE
LEFT THE COURTROOM.
LET'S SEE, A COUPLE THINGS. I GUESS ON TUESDAY MORNING,
WE WILL START WITH THE FORFEITURE ASPECTS OF THE CASE, WHICH I
BELIEVE THE DEFENSE ASKED FOR A JURY VERDICT -- I MEAN ASKED
FOR -- YEAH, FOR A JURY VERDICT ON THAT ISSUE. I ASSUME THAT
IS STILL YOUR DESIRE, MR. ADAMS?
MR. ADAMS: IT IS, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: OKAY. SO WE WILL HAVE YOU BACK HERE AT
10:00 A.M. ON TUESDAY MORNING. NOW I'M GOING TO SET A
SENTENCING DATE AND A MOTIONS HEARING DATE FOR SEPTEMBER 9TH,
AT 9:00 A.M. PLEASE MAKE SURE THAT ALL MOTIONS ARE FILED IN
ACCORDANCE WITH OUR LOCAL RULES. I BELIEVE THAT THERE WAS A
RULE 29 MOTION THAT WAS SUBMITTED. THAT MOTION IS DENIED. I
BELIEVE THAT THE EVIDENCE WAS OVERWHELMING AND MORE THAN ENOUGH
FOR A REASONABLE JURY TO RETURN A GUILTY VERDICT BEYOND A
REASONABLE DOUBT.
WITH REGARDS TO MR. SPANIER, I ALWAYS THOUGHT THAT THIS
CASE WOULD BE MUCH CLOSER AS TO MR. SPANIER; HOWEVER, I DO
BELIEVE, FOR THE REASONS THAT I INDICATED PREVIOUSLY, THAT
240
Case: 14-50306, 10/22/2014, ID: 9287250, DktEntry: 10-2, Page 242 of 276
(326 of 5
Case 3:12-cr-00918-JM Document 445-3 Filed 04/04/16 Page 20 of 24
-
8/18/2019 Spanier Mtn Dismiss Binder2
37/117
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
20
THERE IS SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE FOR A REASONABLE JURY TO RETURN A
GUILTY VERDICT BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.
NOW WITH REGARDS TO MR. SPANIER, I DON'T KNOW IF THE
DEFENSE IS GOING TO RETRY THIS OR NOT OR WHAT YOUR PLEASURE IS.
DO YOU NEED ADDITIONAL TIME TO DECIDE, OR WHAT WOULD YOU LIKE
FOR ME TO DO? I CAN SET IT FOR -- WELL, WHAT IS IT THE
GOVERNMENT WANTS TO DO?
MS. DEVINE: WE WERE THINKING OF A RETRIAL DATE IN
SEPTEMBER.
THE COURT: OKAY. MR. SCOTT, IS SEPTEMBER OKAY WITH
YOU? DO YOU HAVE ANY --
MR. SCOTT: I HAVE A -- I HAVE A PRE-PLANNED
VACATION, STARTING ON THE -- ON SATURDAY THE 21ST, THAT
CORRESPONDS WITH MY CHILDREN'S FALL BREAK. AND THAT'S THE
PROVERBIAL PREPAID TICKETS AND EVERYTHING. THAT IS TWO WEEKS,
STARTING SEPTEMBER 21ST. IF IT'S EARLIER IN SEPTEMBER, THEN
I'M AT THE COURT'S SERVICE.
THE COURT: I COULD GET YOU INTO A LOT OF TROUBLE IF
I INSISTED THAT WE HAVE A TRIAL OVER THE WEEK OF THE 21ST,
RIGHT?
MR. SCOTT: I'M SCARED OF YOUR HONOR, BUT I'M
TERRIFIED OF MY WIFE, SO --
THE COURT: OKAY. MR. WHEAT?
MR. WHEAT: IN LIGHT OF THAT, AND NOT WANTING TO
IMPINGE ON MR. SCOTT'S VACATION, OR SOME PERIOD THEREAFTER, IF
241
Case: 14-50306, 10/22/2014, ID: 9287250, DktEntry: 10-2, Page 243 of 276
(327 of 5
Case 3:12-cr-00918-JM Document 445-3 Filed 04/04/16 Page 21 of 24
-
8/18/2019 Spanier Mtn Dismiss Binder2
38/117
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
21
THE COURT WANTED TO PLACE IT SOMETIME IN OCTOBER, WE HAVE NO
OPPOSITION TO THAT.
THE COURT: MR. SCOTT?
MR. SCOTT: THAT WOULD BE OUTSTANDING, YOUR HONOR.
PERHAPS MID-OCTOBER ON, I'M WIDE OPEN.
THE COURT: GLENN, DO ME A FAVOR, GET ME MY TRIAL
CALENDAR, PLEASE.
CAN I ASK, NOW THAT WE'VE HEARD ALL THIS EVIDENCE, DOES
THE GOVERNMENT HAVE ANY IDEA HOW LONG YOUR CASE -- IF YOU RETRY
THIS, HOW LONG IT WILL TAKE YOU TO PUT ON YOUR CASE.
MR. WHEAT: I WOULD SAY APPROXIMATELY WHAT IT TOOK IN
THIS CASE, YOU KNOW, FOUR TO FIVE DAYS.
THE COURT: OKAY.
MR. WHEAT: IF YOU LOOK AT THE COUNTS OF ACQUITTAL,
THOSE ARE COUNTS DEALING WITH MR. MICELI AND THE MICELI WIRES.
SO I DON'T SEE THAT MATERIALLY ALTERS THE EVIDENCE AGAINST
MR. SPANIER.
THE COURT: THE REASON I'M ASKING IS, I'M PRETTY SURE
THAT I HAVE THE MDL CONFERENCE, WHICH IS SCHEDULED -- I THINK
IT IS EITHER THE THIRD OR FOURTH WEEK IN OCTOBER. SO I'M
PRETTY MUCH OUT OF HERE THAT WEEK.
MR. WHEAT: YOU WANT TO DO IT ON YOUR RETURN, THAT IS
FINE WITH US.
THE COURT: NO, NO. HOW ABOUT IF WE SET A
TRIAL-SETTING CONFERENCE A WEEK OR TWO OR WHATEVER YOUR
242
Case: 14-50306, 10/22/2014, ID: 9287250, DktEntry: 10-2, Page 244 of 276
(328 of 5
Case 3:12-cr-00918-JM Document 445-3 Filed 04/04/16 Page 22 of 24
-
8/18/2019 Spanier Mtn Dismiss Binder2
39/117
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
22
PLEASURE MAY BE. I'LL FIND -- UNLESS YOU WANT TO TAKE A BREAK
RIGHT NOW. IF YOU WANT TO TAKE A BREAK, I COULD PROBABLY
FIGURE OUT THE DATE OF THAT CONFERENCE PRETTY QUICKLY. I NEED
TO GO BACK TO MY CHAMBERS AND LOOK.
MR. SCOTT: THIS IS JUST A SUGGESTION, YOUR HONOR.
BUT IT STRIKES ME THAT OFTEN TIMES, RETRIALS AND WHETHER THERE
IS A RETRIAL AND NEGOTIATIONS IN THE INTERIM OFTEN DEPEND ON
THE NUMERICAL DIVIDE OF THE JURY. PERHAPS IF WE SET A STATUS
FOR AFTER THE SMOKE HAS CLEARED, AND AFTER THE FORFEITURE
PROCEEDINGS FOR MR. MC CLAIN HAVE TAKEN PLACE, PERHAPS THE
PARTIES MIGHT HAVE MORE COLLECTIVE INSIGHT ON HOW TO PROCEED.
I'M NOT TRYING TO GET AHEAD OF MYSELF, I JUST THINK WE MIGHT
HAVE MORE INFORMATION --
THE COURT: YOU WANT ME TO HOLD OFF SETTING A DATE
FOR RETRIAL; IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING?
MR. SCOTT: THAT IS MY SUGGESTION. PERHAPS IF WE SET
A STATUS IN A WEEK OR TEN DAYS, AFTER THE SMOKE CLEARS FROM THE
JURY, IT MIGHT BE A MORE FRUITFUL DISCUSSION, IS MY SUGGESTION.
THE COURT: WHY DON'T WE SET A STATUS TRIAL-SETTING
CONFERENCE IN TWO WEEKS.
MR. WHEAT: THE 10TH, JUNE 10TH?
THE COURT: YEAH, THAT WOULD WORK FOR ME.
HOW ABOUT YOU, MR. SCOTT?
MR. SCOTT: IT WOULD, YOUR HONOR. COULD I APPEAR FOR
MR. SPANIER? COULD I WAIVE HIS PRESENCE FOR THAT? HE'S BEEN
243
Case: 14-50306, 10/22/2014, ID: 9287250, DktEntry: 10-2, Page 245 of 276
(329 of 5
Case 3:12-cr-00918-JM Document 445-3 Filed 04/04/16 Page 23 of 24
-
8/18/2019 Spanier Mtn Dismiss Binder2
40/117
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
23
IN A HOTEL, AND JUST THE EXPENSE ALONE HAS BEEN VERY DAMAGING
TO HIM AND HIS FAMILY.
THE COURT: ANYBODY HAVE ANY OBJECTION?
MR. WHEAT: NONE.
THE COURT: AS LONG AS YOU FILE AN ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF
RECEIPT OR ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF APPEARANCE WITHIN A WEEK --
MR. SCOTT: WE'LL DO THAT.
THE COURT: -- OF MY SETTING A TRIAL DATE; OTHERWISE,
I'LL ISSUE A BENCH WARRANT FOR HIS ARREST. AGREED?
MR. SCOTT: NO, WE'LL TAKE CARE OF IT, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. IN THAT CASE, IS THERE
ANYTHING WE NEED TO ADDRESS AT THIS TIME?
MR. SCOTT: YOUR HONOR, I THINK THIS IS IMPLICIT IN
THE WAY THIS UNFOLDED, BUT I WOULD ASK THAT YOUR HONOR FORMALLY
DECLARE A MISTRIAL FOR THE COUNTS THEY DID NOT REACH A VERDICT
ON.
THE COURT: OKAY. ALL RIGHT. GOOD. DONE.
ANYTHING ELSE? IF NOT, THANK YOU. APPRECIATE IT.
MR. WHEAT: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: MR. ADAMS, MR. MC CLAIN, WE'LL SEE YOU
NEXT WEEK.
MR. ADAMS: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.
(RECESS AT 4:06 P.M.)
---000---
244
Case: 14-50306, 10/22/2014, ID: 9287250, DktEntry: 10-2, Page 246 of 276
(330 of 5
Case 3:12-cr-00918-JM Document 445-3 Filed 04/04/16 Page 24 of 24
-
8/18/2019 Spanier Mtn Dismiss Binder2
41/117
EXHIBIT
C
Case 3:12-cr-00918-JM Document 445-4 Filed 04/04/16 Page 1 of 5
-
8/18/2019 Spanier Mtn Dismiss Binder2
42/117
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
PLAINTIFF,
V.
JEFFREY SPANIER,
DEFENDANT.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
NO. 12-CR-0918
JUNE 10, 2013
2:45 P.M.
SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA
TRANSCRIPT OF STATUS HEARINGBEFORE THE HONORABLE ROGER T. BENITEZ
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
APPEARANCES:
FOR THE PLAINTIFF: U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICESOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIABY: MICHAEL WHEAT, ESQ.BY: TODD ROBINSON, ESQ.880 FRONT STREET, ROOM 6293SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92101
FOR THE DEFENDANT: LAW OFFICE OF TIMOTHY A. SCOTTBY: TIMOTHY A. SCOTT, ESQ.1350 COLUMBIA STREET, SUITE 600SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92101
COURT REPORTER: DEBORAH M. O'CONNELL, RPR, CSR333 W. BROADWAY, ROOM 420SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA, 92101
REPORTED BY STENOTYPE, TRANSCRIBED BY COMPUTER
183
Case: 14-50306, 10/22/2014, ID: 9287250, DktEntry: 10-2, Page 185 of 276
(269 of 5
Case 3:12-cr-00918-JM Document 445-4 Filed 04/04/16 Page 2 of 5
-
8/18/2019 Spanier Mtn Dismiss Binder2
43/117
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
7
ALL RIGHT, LET'S GET BACK TO ISSUE NO. 1. MY RECOLLECTION
IS THAT THE JURY INDICATED THAT ON AVERAGE, THEY WERE LEANING
NINE-THREE FOR CONVICTION ON THE COUNTS THAT THEY DID NOT
ACQUIT MR. SPANIER.
DOES THAT MEAN, MR. WHEAT, THAT THE GOVERNMENT WILL BE
RETRYING THIS CASE?
MR. WHEAT: ABSOLUTELY.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. SO THEN WE NEED TO SET A
TRIAL DATE ON THIS CASE. AND I SEEM TO RECALL, IF MY MEMORY
SERVES ME RIGHT, THAT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT SOMETIME IN
SEPTEMBER, BUT I DON'T KNOW -- AM I NOT -- NO?
MR. WHEAT: NO. I THINK WITH THE SCHEDULES, IT WAS
LATE OCTOBER, EARLY NOVEMBER, IS WHERE, I THINK, WE LEFT IT.
THE COURT: OKAY.
MR. SCOTT: AND THOSE DATES REMAIN FINE WITH ME, YOUR
HONOR.
THE COURT: OKAY, LET'S DO THE FIRST WEEK OF OCTOBER.
MR. SCOTT: I AM UNAVAILABLE UP UNTIL FRIDAY,
OCTOBER 4TH. BUT ANY TIME AFTER THAT, I WILL SWEEP EVERYTHING
ELSE ASIDE, AND I'M WILLING TO RETRY THIS ANY TIME THE COURT
WANTS AFTER OCTOBER 4TH.
THE COURT: CAN WE ANTICIPATE -- WELL, FIRST OF ALL,
LET ME ASK THIS: MR. WHEAT, DOES THE GOVERNMENT REALLY INTEND
TO TRY ALL OF THE COUNTS? I MEAN, IT IS REALLY -- I REMEMBER
JUDGE TURRENTINE ONCE SAYING, PICK YOUR THREE BEST AND TRY YOUR
189
Case: 14-50306, 10/22/2014, ID: 9287250, DktEntry: 10-2, Page 191 of 276
(275 of 5
Case 3:12-cr-00918-JM Document 445-4 Filed 04/04/16 Page 3 of 5
-
8/18/2019 Spanier Mtn Dismiss Binder2
44/117
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
38
LITIGATE THE MERITS OF THIS, BUT IF THAT IS THE HEART OF THE
CONCERN THAT -- I FEEL COMFORTABLE GOING FORWARD WITH THIS
MOTION. THAT DOESN'T SEEM TO RISE TO THE LEVEL OF HAVING AN
FBI AGENT AT MR. BRADDICK'S DOOR. I'D LEAVE IT AT THAT.
THE COURT: WELL, WHATEVER. OKAY, GOOD. ALL RIGHT.
SO I THINK WE NEED TO SET A TRIAL DATE. AND I DISCOVERED
THAT I HAVE AN MDL CONFERENCE; IT IS THE WEEK OF THE 28TH AND
THE 30TH. SO WHEN DID YOU SAY YOU WERE GOING TO BE BACK,
MR. SCOTT?
MR. SCOTT: I'M AVAILABLE AGAIN -- ON OCTOBER 4TH, I
WILL BE BACK. I THINK THAT IS A FRIDAY. SO BEGINNING THE NEXT
WEEK, THIS CASE IS THE FIRST PRIORITY. I'LL MAKE ANY DAY --
THE COURT: OCTOBER 7TH WILL BE MOTIONS IN LIM.
TRIAL WILL START OCTOBER 8TH. IT WILL START AT 9:30 A.M.,
OKAY. PLEASE PLAN TO BE HERE OCTOBER 7TH, AT 2:00 P.M. PLEASE
MAKE SURE THAT -- WE HAVE NOW TRIED THIS CASE ONCE. LET'S MAKE
SURE WE DON'T WAIT UNTIL THE TRIAL TO ADDRESS EVIDENTIARY
ISSUES THAT COULD BE ANTICIPATED WITH ANY REASONABLE DUE
DILIGENCE BEFORE WE GET TO THE TRIAL SO THAT WE CAN MINIMIZE
THE NUMBER OF BREAKS THAT WE HAVE TO TAKE AND TO HAVE THE JURY
SITTING AROUND WAITING FOR US, OKAY. I'D APPRECIATE IT.
LIKEWISE, I'D APPRECIATE THAT IF THERE ARE ANY OTHER JURY
INSTRUCTIONS THAT I HAVEN'T ALREADY SEEN THAT SOMEBODY WANTS TO
PROPOSE, PLEASE MAKE SURE THAT I GET THEM NO LATER THAN TWO
WEEKS BEFORE THE DATE OF THE TRIAL, OKAY. THANK YOU.
220
Case: 14-50306, 10/22/2014, ID: 9287250, DktEntry: 10-2, Page 222 of 276
(306 of 5
Case 3:12-cr-00918-JM Document 445-4 Filed 04/04/16 Page 4 of 5
-
8/18/2019 Spanier Mtn Dismiss Binder2
45/117
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
39
ALL RIGHT, GLENN, DO ME A FAVOR, PLEASE MAKE A COPY OF ALL
OF THIS FOR -- THERE YOU GO.
(RECESS AT 3:45 P.M.)
---000---
C-E-R-T-I-F-I-C-A-T-I-O-N
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I AM A DULY APPOINTED,
QUALIFIED AND ACTING OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER FOR THE UNITED
STATES DISTRICT COURT; THAT THE FOREGOING IS A TRUE AND CORRECT
TRANSCRIPT OF THE PROCEEDINGS HAD IN THE AFOREMENTIONED CAUSE;
THAT SAID TRANSCRIPT IS A TRUE AND CORRECT TRANSCRIPTION OF MY
STENOGRAPHIC NOTES; AND THAT THE FORMAT USED HEREIN COMPLIES
WITH THE RULES AND REQUIREMENTS OF THE UNITED STATES JUDICIAL
CONFERENCE.
DATED: JUNE 27, 2013, AT SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA
_________________________________S/DEBORAH M. O'CONNELL, CSR #10563REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTER
221
Case: 14-50306, 10/22/2014, ID: 9287250, DktEntry: 10-2, Page 223 of 276
(307 of 5
Case 3:12-cr-00918-JM Document 445-4 Filed 04/04/16 Page 5 of 5
-
8/18/2019 Spanier Mtn Dismiss Binder2
46/117
EXHIBIT
D
Case 3:12-cr-00918-JM Document 445-5 Filed 04/04/16 Page 1 of 4
-
8/18/2019 Spanier Mtn Dismiss Binder2
47/117
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
PLAINTIFF,
V.
JEFFREY SPANIER,
DEFENDANT.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
NO. 12-CR-0918
DECEMBER 2, 2013
2:44 P.M.
SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA
TRANSCRIPT OF MOTION IN LIMINE HEARING
BEFORE THE HONORABLE ROGER T. BENITEZ
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
APPEARANCES:
FOR THE PLAINTIFF: U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
BY: MICHAEL WHEAT, ESQ.
BY: FAITH DEVINE, ESQ.
880 FRONT STREET, ROOM 6293
SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92101
FOR THE DEFENDANT: LAW OFFICES OF TIMOTHY A. SCOTT
BY: TIMOTHY A. SCOTT, ESQ.
1350 COLUMBIA STREET, SUITE 600SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92101
COURT REPORTER: DEBORAH M. O'CONNELL, RPR, RMR, CSR
333 W. BROADWAY, ROOM 420
SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA, 92101
REPORTED BY STENOTYPE, TRANSCRIBED BY COMPUTER
126
Case: 14-50306, 10/22/2014, ID: 9287250, DktEntry: 10-2, Page 128 of 276
(212 of 5
Case 3:12-cr-00918-JM Document 445-5 Filed 04/04/16 Page 2 of 4
-
8/18/2019 Spanier Mtn Dismiss Binder2
48/117
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
16
WHEN I SAW IT, I THOUGHT, MY INITIAL REACTION WAS, OH, MY
GOSH, SO ON THE ONE HAND, WE'RE BEING ASKED TO SET TRIAL IN A
SPEEDY FASHION; ON THE OTHER HAND, IT SEEMS TO ME IF I WAS THE
DEFENDANT, I WOULD WANT TO BE ABLE TO MAKE SURE I WAS ABLE TO
ADEQUATELY AND COMPETENTLY DEFEND THOSE CLAIMS.
AND I THINK THAT KIND OF TIES INTO THE COMPLEXITY.
BECAUSE THE CASE WAS COMPLEX BEFORE, BUT NOW YOU'VE ADDED THIS
LITTLE -- I'LL CALL IT "LITTLE." I DON'T KNOW HOW LITTLE IT
IS. BUT YOU'VE ADDED THIS WRINKLE TO THE CASE, WHICH SEEMS TO
MAKE THE CASE EVEN MORE COMPLEX. I DON'T KNOW.
MS. DEVINE: ONCE AGAIN, YOUR HONOR, YOU HAVE
ARTICULATED, I THINK, THE POSITION VERY WELL, AND I DON'T NEED
TO REPEAT IT. THAT IS EXACTLY THE REASON WHY THE CASE IS
COMPLEX AND WHY THERE NEEDED TO BE THIS ADDITIONAL TIME. THE
COMMENT ABOUT, THE INTRODUCTION OF THIS NEW ENTITY IS REALLY --
IT'S NOT -- IT'S ACTUALLY TWO ENTITIES. AND ONE OF THE
ENTITIES WAS AN ENTITY THAT MR. SPANIER CREATED WITH MR. BELLO,
AND IT USES THE AMERIFUND NAME.
THERE WAS MENTION OF THIS OTHER LENDER IN THE FIRST TRIAL.
SO IT'S NOT SOMETHING NEW, BUT IT'S JUST THAT THERE HAS BEEN
SOME ADDITIONAL DISCOVERY AS A RESULT OF THE OTHER WITNESS
AGREEING TO TESTIFY. BECAUSE BEFORE, WE DID NOT HAVE AN
IMMUNITY OR ANY TYPE OF AGREEMENT IN PLACE FOR THIS WITNESS TO
TESTIFY.
NOW THAT HE HAS AGREED -- WHICH, MR. SCOTT IS CORRECT,
141
Case: 14-50306, 10/22/2014, ID: 9287250, DktEntry: 10-2, Page 143 of 276
(227 of 5
Case 3:12-cr-00918-JM Document 445-5 Filed 04/04/16 Page 3 of 4
-
8/18/2019 Spanier Mtn Dismiss Binder2
49/117
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
17
THAT THIS HAPPENED WITHIN THE LAST 30 DAYS. AS SOON AS IT
HAPPENED, WE DID NOTIFY HIM. I TOLD HIM --
THE COURT: I SEE. SO THAT IS WHAT CAUSED YOUR
DELAY, WAS GETTING THE IMMUNITY FROM --
MS. DEVINE: EXACTLY.
THE COURT: I WAS WONDERING ABOUT THAT. I WAS
WONDERING, WHY IN THE WORLD DID THEY WAIT ALL THIS TIME. WE
COULD HAVE GOTTEN THIS RESOLVED A LOT SOONER. OKAY.
LET ME ASK A QUESTION. WHY COULDN'T YOU SPLIT THE COUNTS
TO ALLEGE -- BECAUSE MR. SCOTT IS ALLEGING THIS DUPLICITY. WHY
COULDN'T YOU SPLIT THAT COUNT INTO TWO COUNTS, AND IF YOU DID
THAT -- LET ME JUST -- I'M KIND OF THINKING OUT LOUD HERE. BUT
IF YOU DID THAT, THEN YOU WOULD HAVE A NEW COUNT, RIGHT? AND
THE NEW COUNT IS BASED ON NEW FACTS, AND, THEREFORE, DOESN'T
THE SPEEDY TRIAL CLOCK BEGIN TO RUN AT LEAST AS TO THAT COUNT?
SO EVEN IF, IN FACT, I WERE TO SAY, I'M GOING TO DENY
MR. SCOTT'S MOTION, UNDER -- TO DISMISS ON THE SPEEDY TRIAL
CLOCK GROUNDS, BUT IF YOU SPLIT THE COUNTS, IF I'M WRONG AS TO
PART OF THE COUNTS, I PROBABLY WOULD BE RIGHT AS TO PART OF THE
COUNTS AS WELL, RIGHT? BECAUSE IT ALLEGES NEW FACTS, NEW
INDIVIDUALS, NEW POSSIBLE WITNESSES, AND THERE WOULD BE A NEW
SPEEDY TRIAL CLOCK STARTING FROM THERE, WOULDN'T THERE?
MS. DEVINE: I UNDERSTAND YOUR POSITION. I JUST
DON'T BELIEVE THERE ARE TWO CONSPIRACIES HERE. WHAT WE HAVE
IS, ONE PERSON THAT IS REPRESENTING TO THE PUBLIC THAT HE IS
142
Case: 14-50306, 10/22/2014, ID: 9287250, DktEntry: 10-2, Page 144 of 276
(228 of 5
Case 3:12-cr-00918-JM Document 445-5 Filed 04/04/16 Page 4 of 4
-
8/18/2019 Spanier Mtn Dismiss Binder2
50/117
EXHIBIT
E
Case 3:12-cr-00918-JM Document 445-6 Filed 04/04/16 Page 1 of 40
-
8/18/2019 Spanier Mtn Dismiss Binder2
51/117
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
PLAINTIFF,
V.
JEFFREY T. SPANIER,
DEFENDANT.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
NO. 12-CR-0918
DECEMBER 11, 2013
9:06 A.M.
SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA
TRANSCRIPT OF JURY TRIAL, DAY 2
BEFORE THE HONORABLE ROGER T. BENITEZ
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
APPEARANCES:
FOR THE PLAINTIFF: U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
BY: MICHAEL WHEAT, ESQ.
BY: FAITH DEVINE, ESQ.
880 FRONT STREET, ROOM 6293
SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92101
FOR THE DEFENDANT: COLEMAN, BALOGH & SCOTT, LLP
BY: TIMOTHY A. SCOTT, ESQ.
1350 COLUMBIA STREET, SUITE 600SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92101
COURT REPORTER: DEBORAH M. O'CONNELL, RPR, RMR, CSR
333 W. BROADWAY, ROOM 420
SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA, 92101
REPORTED BY STENOTYPE, TRANSCRIBED BY COMPUTER
Case 3:12-cr-00918-JM Document 398 Filed 08/18/14 Page 1 of 278Case 3:12-cr-00918-JM Document 445-6 Filed 04/04/16 Page 2 of 40
-
8/18/2019 Spanier Mtn Dismiss Binder2
52/117
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10