Summary
This First Circuit Court of Appeals opinion reviews the federal convictions of former Boston Police Department Captain Richard Evans for wire fraud and federal programs theft related to falsified overtime claims. The court affirms the wire fraud convictions but vacates the federal programs theft convictions, finding the government failed to present sufficient evidence that the relevant federal grants constituted statutory "benefits" under 18 U.S.C. § 666. Additionally, the court holds that the district court properly gave a willful blindness instruction based on the record evidence.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the district court properly gave the jury a willful-blindness instruction.
- Whether the evidence was sufficient to establish that the Boston Police Department received more than $10,000 in qualifying federal benefits under 18 U.S.C. § 666(b).
- Whether the district court plainly erred in its good-faith and aiding-and-abetting instructions.
- Whether the district court plainly erred by admitting improper opinion or state-of-mind testimony, permitting leading questions, or otherwise allowing prejudicial testimony.
- Whether cumulative error required a new trial.
Holdings
- A willful-blindness instruction is proper when the defendant claims lack of knowledge, the evidence suggests a conscious course of deliberate ignorance, and the instruction as a whole does not mandate an inference of knowledge. The instruction was supported by the evidence in this case.
- Evidence that the Boston Police Department received federal grants, including grants supporting employee salaries and overtime, was insufficient to establish that the funds were qualifying federal benefits under § 666(b). The evidence did not adequately show the grants' structure, operation, and purpose or that the funds guarded, aided, or promoted well-being.
- The challenged good-faith instruction and the instruction requiring that an aider and abettor consciously share the principal's knowledge of the underlying criminal act and intend to help were not clear or obvious errors under plain-error review.
- Evans failed to establish plain error based on allegedly improper opinion testimony, testimony concerning his state of mind, leading questions, other allegedly prejudicial testimony, or cumulative error.
Key quotations
“A willful blindness instruction is appropriate if (1) a defendant claims a lack of knowledge, (2) the facts suggest a conscious course of deliberate ignorance, and (3) the instruction, taken as a whole, cannot be misunderstood as mandating an inference of knowledge.” (143 F.4th at 11)
“To determine whether an organization participating in a federal assistance program receives 'benefits,' an examination must be undertaken of the program's structure, operation, and purpose.” (143 F.4th at 15)
“Because the government failed to present sufficient evidence to satisfy 18 U.S.C. § 666(b)'s benefits element as to both Count One and Count Two, we vacate Evans' convictions for conspiracy to commit federal benefits theft and federal benefits theft, respectively.” (143 F.4th at 20)
Factual background
Evans was a high-ranking Boston Police Department captain who supervised the Evidence Control Unit and was responsible for overseeing overtime practices. Officers submitted overtime slips falsely reporting four-hour purge-overtime shifts even when they worked substantially less time or when the facility was closed, and Evans eventually approved or submitted such slips. Between April 2015 and March 2016, Evans and other officers submitted 1,139 slips claiming four hours of purge overtime, including 753 slips for days when the facility was closed and alarmed by 6:00 p.m. The government charged the conduct as wire fraud, conspiracy to commit wire fraud, federal programs theft, and conspiracy to commit federal programs theft.
Procedural history
A federal grand jury indicted Evans in 2021. After a five-day jury trial, he was convicted on all counts. The district court sentenced him to concurrent terms of one year and one day of incarceration, imposed a fine, and ordered restitution. The First Circuit affirmed the wire-fraud convictions, vacated the federal-programs-theft convictions, and remanded.
Remand instructions
The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion after vacatur of the convictions for federal programs theft and conspiracy to commit federal programs theft.