Case 1:15-cr-00204-EAW-JJM Document 73 Filed 05/11/17 Page 1 of 4
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
`
`;·.
`
`UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
`
`v.
`
`JAMES A. MACCALLUM,
`
`Defendant.
`
`DECISION AND ORDER
`
`1 :15-CR-00204 EAW
`
`Following trial, Defendant James A. MacCallum ("Defendant") was. convicted of
`
`one count of mail fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1341. Presently before the Court is
`
`Defendant's motion pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 29( c) for a judgment of acquittal. (Dkt.
`
`67). Defendant bases his motion "on the grounds set forth on the record at the close of
`
`the government's case on March 23, 2017, and prior to verdict on March 24, 2017." (Id.
`
`at 14). For the reasons set forth below, Defendant's motion is denied.
`
`DISCUSSION
`
`Defendant timely filed his motion pursuant to Rule 29(c)-within 14 days after the
`
`guilty verdict. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 29(c)(l). The standard on a motion for a judgment of
`
`acquittal is stringent, and a defendant claiming that he was convicted based on
`
`insufficient evidence "bears a very heavy burden." United States v. Blackwood, 366 F.
`
`App'x 207, 209 (2d Cir. 2010) (quoting United States v. Desena, 287 F.3d 170, 177 (2d
`
`Cir. 2002)). "In considering a motion for judgment of acquittal, the court must view the
`
`evidence presented in the light most favorable to the government." United States v.
`
`- 1 -
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
`
`;·.
`
`UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
`
`v.
`
`JAMES A. MACCALLUM,
`
`Defendant.
`
`DECISION AND ORDER
`
`1 :15-CR-00204 EAW
`
`Following trial, Defendant James A. MacCallum ("Defendant") was. convicted of
`
`one count of mail fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1341. Presently before the Court is
`
`Defendant's motion pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 29( c) for a judgment of acquittal. (Dkt.
`
`67). Defendant bases his motion "on the grounds set forth on the record at the close of
`
`the government's case on March 23, 2017, and prior to verdict on March 24, 2017." (Id.
`
`at 14). For the reasons set forth below, Defendant's motion is denied.
`
`DISCUSSION
`
`Defendant timely filed his motion pursuant to Rule 29(c)-within 14 days after the
`
`guilty verdict. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 29(c)(l). The standard on a motion for a judgment of
`
`acquittal is stringent, and a defendant claiming that he was convicted based on
`
`insufficient evidence "bears a very heavy burden." United States v. Blackwood, 366 F.
`
`App'x 207, 209 (2d Cir. 2010) (quoting United States v. Desena, 287 F.3d 170, 177 (2d
`
`Cir. 2002)). "In considering a motion for judgment of acquittal, the court must view the
`
`evidence presented in the light most favorable to the government." United States v.
`
`- 1 -
`
`
`
`Case 1:15-cr-00204-EAW-JJM Document 73 Filed 05/11/17 Page 2 of 4
`
`Guadagna, 183 F.3d 122, 129 (2d Cir. 1999). Accordingly, "[a]ll permissible inferences
`
`must be drawn in the government's favor." Id.
`
`"If any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime,
`
`the conviction must stand." United States v. Puzzo, 928 F.2d 1356, 1361 (2d Cir. 1991)
`
`(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). "The test is whether the jury, drawing
`
`reasonable inferences from the evidence, may fairly and logically have concluded that the
`
`defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt."
`
`Id. (internal quotation marks and
`
`citations omitted). The evidence must be viewed "in its totality, not in isolation," United
`
`States v. Huezo, 546 F .3d 17 4, 178 (2d Cir. 2008), "as each fact may gain color from
`
`others." Guadagna, 183 F.3d at 130. The court may enter a judgment of acquittal only if
`
`the evidence that the defendant committed the crime is "nonexistent or so meager that no
`
`reasonable jury could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt."
`
`Id. (internal quotation
`
`marks and citation omitted).
`
`A district court must be careful not to usurp the role of the jury. "Rule 29(c) does
`
`not provide the trial court with an opportunity to 'substitute its own determination of ...
`
`the weight of the evidence and the reasonable inferences to be drawn for that of the
`
`jury."' Id. at 129 (quoting United States v. Mariani, 725 F.2d 862, 865 (2d Cir. 1984)).
`
`"A jury's verdict will be sustained if there is substantial evidence, taking the view most
`
`favorable to the government, to support it." United States v. Nersesian, 824 F.2d 1294,
`
`1324 (2d Cir. 1987). The government is not required "'to preclude every reasonable
`
`hypothesis which is consistent with innocence."' United States v. Chang An-Lo, 851
`
`F.2d 547, 554 (2d Cir. 1988) (citing United States v. Fiore, 821 F.2d 127, 128 (2d Cir.
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`
`Case 1:15-cr-00204-EAW-JJM Document 73 Filed 05/11/17 Page 3 of 4
`
`1987)). Further, a jury's verdict may be based entirely on circumstantial evidence. See
`
`United States v. Martinez, 54 F.3d 1040, 1043 (2d Cir. 1995).
`
`Defendant argued during his oral motions for judgment of acquittal that the
`
`evidence was insufficient to support a verdict of guilty with respect to each of the
`
`elements necessary to establish a violation of the mail fraud statute set forth at 18 U.S.C.
`
`§ 1341.
`
`In other words, Defendant contended that there was insufficient evidence to
`
`establish: a scheme or artifice to defraud or to obtain money or property by materially
`
`false or fraudulent pretenses, representations or promises, as alleged in the Indictment;
`
`that Defendant knowingly and willfully participated in the scheme or artifice to defraud,
`
`with knowledge of its fraudulent nature and with specific intent to defraud; and that in
`
`execution of that scheme, Defendant used or caused the use of the mails or a private or
`
`commercial interstate carrier as specified in the Indictment.
`
`As the Court indicated in ruling on those oral motions, the evidence was more than
`
`sufficient to support a guilty finding. The Government presented evidence at trial that
`
`from 2008 until 2010, Defendant received money from numerous victim investors, and
`
`that Defendant used the incoming money to pay other investors in furtherance of a
`
`quintessential Ponzi scheme-where one investor's moneys were used to pay other
`
`investors. The jury heard testimony from five victim investors who described how he or
`
`she sent money to Defendant intending for Defendant to invest the moneys on their
`
`behalf with guaranteed rates of return in excess of 12 percent, but that they did not
`
`receive such return and, in fact, the investments that were allegedly secured by various
`
`types of collateral were fraudulent. The evidence established that the moneys were not
`
`- 3 -
`
`
`
`Case 1:15-cr-00204-EAW-JJM Document 73 Filed 05/11/17 Page 4 of 4
`
`used as Defendant represented, and instead he used the moneys to pay his own personal
`
`expenses and further his fraudulent scheme. Moreover, the evidence established that, as
`
`part of the scheme, one of the victims-who was a citizen and resident of Canada-
`
`received a promissory note dated December 13, 2010, from Defendant sent by
`
`commercial interstate carrier. The note promised to pay $500,000, when at the time,
`
`Defendant only had approximately $5,000 available to make any such payment.
`
`In addition to the victim investors, the jury heard testimony from Defendant's
`
`former business associates, employees of the Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI"),
`
`and perhaps most importantly, Defendant's own words wherein he confessed to FBI
`
`Special Agent Brent Isaacson that Defendant had perpetrated the Ponzi scheme.
`
`In sum, the evidence was more than sufficient to support the jury's verdict that the
`
`Government met its burden of proof on each and every element of the mail fraud count.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons, Defendant's motion for acquittal pursuant to Fed. R.
`
`Crim. P. 29 (Dkt. 67) is denied.
`
`SO ORDERED.
`
`Dated: May 11, 2017
`Rochester, New York
`
`- 4 -
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
