UNITED STATES V. VIGNEAU 187 F.3d 70 (1st 1999) CASE BRIEF

UNITED STATES V. VIGNEAU

187 F.3d 70 (1st 1999)

NATURE OF THE CASE: Vigneau (D) sought review of conviction for participating in a continuing criminal enterprise, possession of marijuana, attempted possession of marijuana, and conspiracy to distribute marijuana and money laundering. This was a dispute over the admissibility of Money Order records to prove that a defendant was in fact the sender of the Money Orders.

FACTS: Patrick and Mark Vigneau, brothers, were convicted after a lengthy trial on charges growing out of their participation in a drug distribution scheme. From around February 1995 to at least the end of that year, Patrick Vigneau (D) and Richard Crandall conducted a venture to acquire marijuana and steroids. Crandall sent the drugs to D in Rhode Island and southeastern Massachusetts. D distributed the drugs to retail dealers, used others to assist him, including his brother and Joseph Rinaldi. D transmitted funds to Crandall primarily through Western Union money orders. D often using false or borrowed names to send the monies. Timothy Owens frequently picked up the checks from Western Union, cashed them, and gave the money to Crandall. Wishing to expand the operation they purchased two vans in El Paso in March 1995, and registered one in D's name and the other in Crandall's name. They also used U-Haul trucks filled with cheap furniture and concealed the marijuana, which was shrink-wrapped in plastic, behind the furniture. In September 1995, the DEA intercepted an Airborne Express package with several pounds of marijuana and some steroids. In December 1995, Owens and one Randy Panahi were making a U-Haul delivery of marijuana to D when they were halted by the Missouri Highway Patrol. They agreed to cooperate secretly with the DEA. The authorities also secured Crandall's cooperation. D knew that Owens and Panahi were now cooperating with the agents, he did not know that Crandall was doing so as well. D was charge and convicted. D appealed; the district court erred in allowing the government to introduce, without redaction and for all purposes, Western Union 'To Send Money' forms, primarily in support of the money laundering charges. For some transfers the government had the forms completed by the sender, but for most it had only the computer records. D claims that his name, address and telephone number on the 'To Send Money' forms were inadmissible hearsay used to identify D as the sender.

ISSUE:

RULE OF LAW:

HOLDING AND DECISION:

LEGAL ANALYSIS:

Get free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online

for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.

https://bsmsphd.com

© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner