No. 23-1321

Jeffrey Batio v. United States

Lower Court: Seventh Circuit
Docketed: 2024-06-18
Status: Denied
Type: Paid
Tags: criminal-intent fraudulent-intent good-faith good-faith-defense jury-instruction jury-instructions mail-fraud misrepresentation misrepresentations wire-fraud
Key Terms:
DueProcess Jurisdiction
Latest Conference: 2024-10-18
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Does it improperly deprive a defendant of his defense of good faith when a jury is instructed that, if the jury finds any 'false and fraudulent representations,' it must disregard a defendant's good faith in all representations?

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTION PRESENTED Proving federal mail or wire fraud requires proving a defendant’s specific intent to defraud. A defendant’s good faith that his representations are true is a defense to fraudulent intent. Alleged fraudulent schemes can vary in nature and scope. An alleged fraudulent scheme might involve just one kind of misrepresentation repeated to many different people. On the other hand, an alleged fraudulent scheme might involve many different kinds of alleged misrepresentations, and so a defendant might have different intent with respect to different kinds of statements. Under the operative rule in the Seventh Circuit, a jury is required to disregard a defendant’s good faith across the board if the defendant makes any false and fraudulent misrepresentations. Over petitioner’s objection, the trial court so instructed the jury. The indictment in this case charged petitioner with a scheme that allegedly included financial misrepresentations, technological misrepresentations, track-record misrepresentations, and marketing misrepresentations. The jury convicted petitioner of mail and wire fraud. The question presented is as follows: Does it improperly deprive a defendant of his defense of good faith when a jury is instructed that, if the jury finds any “false and fraudulent representations,” it must disregard a defendant’s good faith in all representations? ii STATEMENT OF

Docket Entries

2024-10-21
Petition DENIED.
2024-10-02
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/18/2024.
2024-10-01
2024-09-18
Brief of respondent United States in opposition filed.
2024-08-06
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is further extended to and including September 18, 2024.
2024-08-05
Motion of United States for an extension of time submitted.
2024-08-05
Motion to extend the time to file a response from August 19, 2024 to September 18, 2024, submitted to The Clerk.
2024-07-12
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including August 19, 2024.
2024-07-10
Motion of United States for an extension of time submitted.
2024-07-10
Motion to extend the time to file a response from July 18, 2024 to August 19, 2024, submitted to The Clerk.
2024-06-14
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due July 18, 2024)
2024-03-25
Application (23A860) granted by Justice Barrett extending the time to file until June 14, 2024.
2024-03-21
Application (23A860) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from April 17, 2024 to June 14, 2024, submitted to Justice Barrett.

Attorneys

Jeffrey Batio
Andrew Thomas DufresnePerkins Coie LLP, Petitioner
United States
Elizabeth B. Prelogar — Respondent