United States District Court, S.D. Georgia, Savannah Division
WILLIAM T. MOORE, JR., UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE.
the Court are Defendant Stacy Paul Waddell's Motion for
New Trial (Doc. 322), Motion for Judgment of
Acquittal (Doc. 328), and Amended Motion for New
Trial (Doc. 358). For the following reasons, Defendant's
motions are DENIED.
18, 2015, Defendant was named in an indictment charging him
with one count of conspiracy to commit wire and mail fraud in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1349. (Doc. 3 ¶¶
5-6.) The Government amended the charges several times by
superseding the previous indictment. (Doc. 44; Doc. 89; Doc.
210; Doc. 244.) Ultimately, Defendant was charged in a Fourth
Superseding Indictment with four counts of wire fraud, one
count of possession and sale of counterfeit coins, and one
count of tampering with documents or proceedings. (Doc. 244.)
the five-day jury trial, the Government presented thirty-four
witnesses and approximately one hundred exhibits. These
witnesses included the live testimony of Dana Golden, Wesley
Bassil, Edward Peng, Scott Horton, Norm Carnovale, Erik
Perozo, and other victims of Defendant's fraud scheme.
The Government presented the testimony of another victim,
Robert Folkenberg, through an edited deposition taken after
Mr. Folkenberg was diagnosed with terminal cancer. In
addition, numerous records custodians testified concerning
various phone calls between the victims and Defendant, as
well as the movement of funds from the victims to accounts
controlled by Defendant.
general narrative from these witnesses was that Defendant
engaged in a scheme to entice victims to purchase precious
metals in the form of gold and silver bullion coins issued by
the United States Mint. As part of the scheme, Defendant
attempted to reach potential victims by maintaining a website
and advertising on craigslist, as well as relying on word of
mouth. Defendant would advertise precious metals for sale at
below market value and promise quick delivery following
receipt of the purchase price, usually by wire transfer.
However, Defendant often did not deliver the precious metals
as promised. On other occasions, Defendant delivered
counterfeit coins that were composed of only base metals.
Defendant was arrested, he directed Justin Drotleff to locate
and destroy some counterfeit coins located in Defendant's
car. At the time, authorities were executing a search warrant
for Defendant's residence. The coins were under the trunk
carpeting of Defendant's wrecked vehicle, which was
parked in the garage. Exercising his better judgment, the
individual informed authorities as to the location of the
Court provided Defendant with appointed counsel in this case.
However, Defendant elected to represent himself at trial.
Unsurprisingly, Defendant was convicted on all six counts
contained in the Fourth Superseding Indictment.
now requests he be granted either a new trial or a judgment
of acquittal, filing motions (Doc. 322; Doc. 328), an amended
motion (Doc. 358), and numerous supplements to these motions
(Doc. 338; Doc. 374; Doc. 377; Doc. 378.) While voluminous,
Defendant's multiple filings can be reduced to a few
general arguments. With respect to the wire fraud allegations
in Counts One through Four, Defendant contends that the
Government failed to prove each element of the offense
because it did not establish that the named victims responded
to any of Defendant's telemarketing activities. Defendant
also advances the general argument that the Government failed
to establish that venue was proper in the Southern District
of Georgia because no wire transfers that were in furtherance
of the fraud scheme were conducted within this district.
the possession and sale of counterfeit coins alleged in Count
5, Defendant maintains that the Government failed to
establish he had the intent to defraud. Also, Defendant
contends that the fake coins did not meet the legal
definition of counterfeit because they could be identified as
fake by a sensible and unsuspecting person of ordinary
observation and care. Finally, Defendant argues that the
Government failed to prove that he knew the coins were fake.
respect to the allegations in Count Six of tampering with
evidence or proceedings, Defendant contends that the
Government failed to establish that he acted corruptly.
Defendant offers the altruistic excuse that he was simply
trying to keep these fake coins out of circulation. Lastly,
Defendant maintains that the fake coins were immaterial to
the only charge he was facing at the time of his
arrest-conspiracy to commit mail or wire fraud.
also argues that he should be granted a new trial or a
judgment of acquittal based on alleged prosecutorial
misconduct. Defendant claims that the Government failed to
properly edit Mr. Folkenberg's video deposition according
to this Court's directions. According to Defendant, the
Government failed to redact certain portions unfavorable to
Defendant, while redacting certain portions favorable to
Defendant that the Court did not order to be omitted. Also,
Defendant contends that the Government purposefully failed to
redact a reference by Mr. Folkenberg that Defendant had
previously been convicted of a felony offense. Finally,
Defendant alleges that the Government failed to timely
provide him with a copy of the redacted transcript as ordered
by the Court, only receiving it a few days prior to trial.
to the video deposition, Defendant maintains that the
Government acted improperly by failing to disclose certain
pieces of evidence. First, Defendant states that the
Government failed to provide him access to his laptop and
iPad, but only gave him copies of the electronic data on the
two hard drives. Second, the Government never provided emails
from Defendant to Mr. Folkenberg. Defendant contends both
that he requested these emails, and that their reference by
certain witnesses establish that they actually existed.
response, the Government argues that it presented ample
evidence from which a reasonable jury could conclude that the
fraud schemes charged in the indictment involved
telemarketing (Doc. 332 at 5-6), and that venue was proper
because Defendant caused wire transfers to be initiated or
received in this district (id. at 4-5) . With
respect to selling counterfeit coins, the Government
maintains that it presented sufficient evidence to permit the
jury to conclude that Defendant knew the coins were
counterfeit. (Id. at 6-7.) In addition, the
Government reasons that the coins met the statutory
definition of counterfeit. (Id.) Regarding Count
Six, the ...