Summary
The Second Circuit affirmed the convictions of William Sheiner and Victor Piacentile for mail and wire fraud, conspiracy, and offenses involving fraudulently altered coins. The court held that substantial evidence supported findings that the coins were artificially altered and that the defendants had the requisite knowledge and fraudulent intent. The court also held that Sheiner knowingly and voluntarily accepted joint representation and had not shown prejudice from the alleged conflict of interest.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether substantial evidence supported the findings that the pennies were fraudulently altered and that Piacentile knowingly sold or possessed them in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 331.
- Whether expert testimony regarding the technical impossibility of the United States Mint producing the multiple impressions was admissible.
- Whether substantial evidence supported the defendants' convictions for using the mails and interstate wires to defraud.
- Whether Sheiner was denied his Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel because he and Piacentile were represented by the same attorney.
- Whether Sheiner's express, informed decision to continue with joint counsel waived any objection to the potential conflict and whether the joint representation caused prejudicial actual conflict.
Holdings
- Substantial evidence supported the findings that the pennies were artificially altered after leaving the mint and that Piacentile had knowledge, or reason to know, of their fraudulent alteration.
- Qualified expert testimony may assist the factfinder in drawing conclusions from technical facts when the subject matter depends on professional or scientific knowledge or skill.
- The evidence was sufficient to support the convictions for using the mails and interstate wires to defraud.
- Sheiner was not denied effective assistance of counsel where the trial court carefully warned him of the potential conflict, he made a considered and express choice to continue with joint counsel, and the record showed neither substantial actual conflict nor prejudice.
Key quotations
“when the subject matter is of such a technical nature that the proper conclusion to be drawn from the facts depends upon professional or scientific knowledge or skill, qualified experts may express their opinions as to the proper inference to be drawn from a given set of facts, as an aid to the jury in reaching their own conclusion in the case before them.” (¶ 7)
“It may be inferred or gathered from the outward manifestations, by the words or acts of the party charged with knowledge and from the facts and circumstances surrounding or attendant upon the act with which it is charged to be connected.” (¶ 11)
“Judgment affirmed.” (¶ 29)
Factual background
Piacentile and Sheiner marketed purportedly genuine 1964 multi-struck pennies as rare mint errors. Government technical evidence showed that the pennies could not have been produced by United States Mint machinery and had been artificially altered after leaving the mint. Despite controversy and a Mint Director's announcement that the coins were altered, defendants continued selling and advertising them, including through allegedly false publicity concerning a public demonstration. Sheiner and Piacentile shared trial counsel, but the trial court expressly warned Sheiner of the possible conflict and he elected to continue with the same attorney.
Procedural history
A district judge sitting by designation found both defendants guilty on numerous mail-fraud, wire-fraud, conspiracy, and fraudulently altered coin counts. Sheiner later moved to set aside his conviction, asserting that joint representation created a conflict of interest; the district court denied the motion after a hearing. The Second Circuit affirmed the convictions.