United States v. Weigand

1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. JASON WEIGAND

Nos. 5:17-cr-00556, 5:20-cr-00248

United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania

October 4, 2022

Defendant's Motion for Acquittal, ECF No.'s 77 in 20-248 and 154 in 17-556 - Denied

OPINION

JOSEPH F. LEESON, JR., United States District Judge.

I. INTRODUCTION

Jason Weigand used his position as a financial advisor to take advantage of his clients. He forged their signatures on checks, assumed their identities, misused their money, and accessed one client's private email account without permission. In order to keep the scheme afloat, Weigand used his clients' personal information to open fake accounts in their name without their knowledge and moved client funds between various accounts interchangeably.

The government criminally charged Weigand with 30 different counts under two separate indictments, and the case went to trial. Trial lasted twelve days and consisted of many hours of testimony from multiple witnesses, the admission of 19 telephone calls that were recorded by various financial institutions, and thousands of financial records, some of which were reflected in summary charts prepared by the government.

The jury found Weigand guilty of all 30 counts. In a post-trial motion, Weigand now argues that the jury's verdict should be vacated because some charges against him were not supported by substantial evidence and others lacked evidence of necessary elements. In the alternative, he argues that the Court committed errors during the trial that warrant a new trial. He also argues that the government failed to disclose evidence that it should have and asks that the Court hold a hearing on that issue. None of Weigand's arguments are persuasive, and the Court denies his motion in its entirety.

II. BACKGROUND

Weigand was a registered investment adviser who helped his clients invest their money in various securities and insurance products. However, he abused his position of trust at the expense of several clients^[1]-AR, BG, AR, WK, JH and RH, and WP-by, among other things, misusing and misappropriating their money. As a result, a grand jury returned a 24-count indictment against Weigand alleging bank fraud, wire fraud, mail fraud, aggravated identity theft, unauthorized access to a computer, money laundering, and interstate transportation of stolen property (the “17-556 indictment”).

Weigand was released on bail on the condition that he not commit any other Federal or State crimes during his release. ECF No. 6 in 17-556. While on release, Weigand traveled to California and induced AH to give him several checks that were meant to be invested for her benefit but that he used for other purposes. As a result, a grand jury returned a separate 6-count indictment charging Weigand with mail fraud, wire fraud, and interstate transportation of stolen securities (the “20-248 indictment”).

In general, the two indictments alleged that Weigand devised a scheme to defraud his clients and obtain their money by means of false and fraudulent pretenses, representations, and promises. In order to carry out this scheme, Weigand forged his clients' signatures and assumed their identities to open and manage accounts at various financial institutions. When one client grew suspicious, he accessed her private email without her permission in order read her email correspondence with another financial advisor who encouraged her to report Weigand to the authorities. Throughout the scheme, Weigand employed the use of the mails, the internet, and transported checks across state lines.

The two criminal cases were consolidated for trial. During trial, the jury heard testimony from the victims and many other witnesses. The jury also listened to 19 recorded telephone calls with financial institutions. In four of the calls, Weigand identified himself and provided personal identifying information. Government witnesses who were familiar with Weigand's voice confirmed that the caller in the first four calls was indeed Weigand. In the other calls, Weigand pretended to be his clients and provided their personal identifying information. The jury also saw numerous charts that summarized thousands of bank records. A summary witness for the government testified that she created the charts using underlying bank records. Weigand presented a defense through presentation of evidence, cross-examination, calling witnesses, and argument by counsel.

The jury found Weigand guilty on all counts charged in both indictments. The jury also found that he committed some of the offenses charged in the 20-248 indictment while he was on release pending trial.

Weigand filed a post-trial motion arguing that his conviction should be reversed or, in the alternative, that he should receive a new trial. See Mot., ECF No. 154 in 20-248; 77 in 17-556. In the Motion, he also asks the Court to hold a hearing to address his claim that the government improperly withheld Brady or Giglio evidence. The government filed a response, see Resp., ECF No. 157 in 20-248; 80 in 17-556, and Weigand filed a reply. See Reply ECF No. 163 in 20-248; 85 in 17-556.

III. LEGAL STANDARDS

a. Motion for Acquittal - Review of Applicable Law

A convicted defendant may file a motion for acquittal under rule 29 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Such a motion “may only be granted where the evidence is insufficient to sustain the conviction.” United States v. Little, 314 F.Supp.3d 647, 652 (E.D. Pa. 2018). Courts ask whether the defendant's guilty verdict is supported by substantial evidence. Id. Evidence is “substantial” when “a reasonable mind might accept [it] as adequate to support a conclusion.” Shuter v. Astrue, 537 F.Supp.2d 752, 755 (E.D. Pa. 2008). When determining whether evidence is substantial, courts “may not weigh the evidence,” nor may they “make credibility determinations.” Little, 314 F.Supp.3d at 652. Courts must also “consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the government, and presume that the jury properly evaluated credibility of witnesses, found the facts, and drew rational inferences.” Id. (cleaned up). In adjudicating a motion for acquittal, the government's burden is low. It may be met “entirely through circumstantial evidence.” Id. Indeed, “the verdict must be upheld unless ‘no reasonable juror could accept the evidence as sufficient to support the conclusion of the defendant's guilt beyond a doubt.'” Id. (quoting United States v. Coleman, 811 F.2d 804, 807 (3d Cir.1987)).

b. Motion for a New Trial - Review of Applicable Law

A defendant may move the court to “vacate any judgment and grant a new trial if the interest of justice so requires.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 33(a). Justice requires a new trial only when errors were made in the first trial, and it is reasonably probable that the verdict was influenced by those errors. See United States v. Georgiou, 777 F.3d 125, 143 (3d Cir. 2015). “A district court can order a new trial on the ground that the jury's verdict is contrary to the weight of the evidence only if it believes that there is a serious danger that a miscarriage of justice has occurred-that is, that an innocent person has been convicted.” United States v. Johnson, 302 F.3d 139, 150 (3d Cir. 2002) (cleaned up). Granting motions for new trials is disfavored, and it should only be done in “exceptional” cases. United States v. Silveus, 542 F.3d 993, 1005 (3d Cir. 2008). “The defendant bears the burden of proving that a new trial ought to be granted.” United States v. Steptoe, No. CRIM.A. 01-429-02, 2003 WL 22016866, at *1 (E.D. Pa. June 19, 2003), aff'd, 126 Fed.Appx. 47 (3d Cir. 2005).

IV. ANALYSIS

Weigand makes a number of arguments in his Motion. His arguments can be placed into three different categories. In the first, Weigand attacks the evidence supporting nearly every count that he was convicted of. In the second, Weigand highlights two alleged errors that the Court made during trial. In the third, Weigand asks for a hearing on evidence that he believes the government withheld and, according to him, was Brady or Giglio evidence. None are persuasive.

1. First Category - Arguments for Acquittal

Weigand first contends that he is entitled to a judgment of acquittal on all 30 counts that the jury convicted him of under the two indictments. He argues that each count suffers from either insufficient evidence or a complete lack of evidence. Weigand's arguments are unpersuasive for one primary reason: he minimizes and ignores the inculpatory evidence admitted at trial. Weigand essentially wants this Court to reweigh the evidence, but it cannot do that, nor can it second guess the jury's credibility determinations. Instead, the Court must consider all the evidence in a light most favorable to the government and draw all reasonable inferences in the government's favor. In doing that, the court finds that each count is supported by substantial evidence. Thus, Weigand has not met his very high burden of showing that the verdict in this case should be reversed. Since Weigand challenges every count, the Court discusses each one in more detail below.

a. Count 1 in 17-556-Bank Fraud

Count 1 in 17-556 charged Weigand with bank fraud. Specifically, the government alleged that AR gave Weigand funds for investing for her benefit. Instead of investing those funds, Weigand used the money to open separate accounts at Wells Fargo and Fidelity Investments in the name of a different client, BG. Weigand then forged BG's name on six different checks written on those accounts and used the money for personal and business purposes. Neither AR nor BG approved Weigand's actions. Based on those allegations, the government argued that Weigand violated the federal bank...