United States v. Wider

Summary

The Second Circuit affirmed a conviction for conspiracy to commit bank fraud under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1344 and 1349, arising from a mortgage fraud scheme involving inflated property prices. The court rejected the defendant's ineffective assistance of counsel claim for lack of prejudice, held that Speedy Trial Act claims were waived by failure to move for dismissal before trial, and found no merit in arguments regarding prosecutorial misconduct, Brady violations, sufficiency of the evidence, the Confrontation Clause, or the Ex Post Facto Clause. The conviction was supported by sufficient evidence that the defendant knowingly participated in a scheme to defraud federally insured financial institutions.

Holdings

1. Even assuming counsel's representation was objectively unreasonable, Wider suffered no prejudice because the co-defendants agreed to the delay and the trial would not have been held earlier.
2. Wider waived any Speedy Trial Act claim by failing to move to dismiss the indictment prior to trial.
3. The constitutional speedy trial claim fails because the 60-day delay was reasonable, Wider did not object, and no prejudice resulted.
4. Wider's arguments regarding prosecutorial misconduct and Brady violations are meritless; no misconduct or suppression of exculpatory evidence occurred.
5. The evidence was sufficient for any rational trier of fact to find Wider guilty of conspiracy to commit bank fraud.
6. Wider's Ex Post Facto challenge fails because the victim banks (except Nomura) were FDIC-insured, and the 2007 Sentencing Guidelines were properly applied as they were less severe.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Wider received ineffective assistance of counsel due to his attorney's concurrent representation of a co-defendant during a status conference.
2. Whether Wider's rights under the Speedy Trial Act and the Sixth Amendment were violated.
3. Whether prosecutorial misconduct or Brady violations occurred.
4. Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction.
5. Whether the conviction and sentence violated the Ex Post Facto Clause.

Disposition

affirmed