Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Date: 01-09-2014
Case Style: United States of America v. Dorothy June Brown
Case Number: 2:12-cr-00367-RBS
Judge: R. Barclay Surrick
Court: United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia County)
Plaintiff's Attorney: Joan E. Burnes and Frank R. Costello
Defendant's Attorney: Richard M. Haggerty, Jr., Todd Nolan Hutchison, Colleen D. Lynch, William M. McSwain and Gregory P. Miller
Description: The United States of America charged Dorothy June Brown, age 76, with:
Count: 1-50 Citation: 18:1343.F Offense Level: 4
18:1343 WIRE FRAUD; 18:2 AIDING AND ABETTING
Count: 51 Citation: 18:371.F Offense Level: 4
18:371 CONSPIRACY TO OBSTRUCT JUSTICE
Count: 52 Citation: 18:1519.F Offense Level: 4
18:1519 OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE; 18:2 AIDING AND ABETTING
Count: 53-56 Citation: 18:1519.F Offense Level: 4
18:1519 OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE; 18:2 AIDING AND ABETTING
Count: 57-58 Citation: 18:1512C.F Offense Level: 4
18:1512(c)(2) OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE; 18:2 AIDING AND ABETTING
Count: 59-60 Citation: 18:1519.F Offense Level: 4
18:1519 OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE; 18:2 AIDING AND ABETTING
Count: 62 Citation: 18:1512B.F Offense Level: 4
18:1512(b)(3) WITNESS TAMPERING
Count: 1s-41s Citation: 18:1343.F Offense Level: 4
18:1343 - WIRE FRAUD; 18:2 - AIDING AND ABETTING
Count: 42s-45s Citation: 18:1343.F Offense Level: 4
18:1343 - WIRE FRAUD; 18:2 - AIDING AND ABETTING
Count: 46s-52s Citation: 18:1343.F Offense Level: 4
18:1343 - WIRE FRAUD; 18:2 - AIDING AND ABETTING
Count: 54s-59s Citation: 18:1519.F Offense Level: 4
18:1519 - OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE; 18:2 - AIDING AND ABETTING
Count: 61s-62s Citation: 18:1512C.F Offense Level: 4
18:1512(c)(2) - OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE; 18:2 - AIDING AND ABETTING
Count: 63s Citation: 18:1519.F Offense Level: 4
18:1519 - OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE; 18:2 - AIDING AND ABETTING
Count: 65s Citation: 18:1519.F Offense Level: 4
18:1519 - OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE; 18:2 - AIDING AND ABETTING
Count: 67s Citation: 18:1512B.F Offense Level: 4
18:1512(b)(3) - WITNESS TAMPERING
Defendant founded Laboratory Charter School, Ad Prima, Planet Abacus and Agora Cyber Charger in the Philadelphia metro area.
The Government alleged that Defendant committed many criminal acts in conjunction with the creation and operation of the schools involving $6.7 million.
Title 18 U.S.C. 1343 provides:
Whoever, having devised or intending to devise
any scheme or artifice to defraud, or for obtaining
money or property by means of false or
fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises,
transmits or causes to be transmitted by
means of wire, radio, or television communication
in interstate or foreign commerce, any
writings, signs, signals, pictures, or sounds for
the purpose of executing such scheme or artifice,
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned
not more than 20 years, or both. If the violation
occurs in relation to, or involving any benefit
authorized, transported, transmitted, transferred,
disbursed, or paid in connection with, a
presidentially declared major disaster or emergency
(as those terms are defined in section 102
of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5122)), or
affects a financial institution, such person shall
be fined not more than $1,000,000 or imprisoned
not more than 30 years, or both.
Title 18 U.S.C. 371 provides:
If two or more persons conspire either to commit
any offense against the United States, or to
defraud the United States, or any agency thereof
in any manner or for any purpose, and one or
more of such persons do any act to effect the object
of the conspiracy, each shall be fined under
this title or imprisoned not more than five
years, or both.
If, however, the offense, the commission of
which is the object of the conspiracy, is a misdemeanor
only, the punishment for such conspiracy
shall not exceed the maximum punishment
provided for such misdemeanor.
(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 701; Pub. L.
103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(L), Sept. 13, 1994,
108 Stat. 2147.)
HISTORICAL AND REVISION NOTES
Based on title 18, U.S.C., 1940 ed., §§ 88, 294 (Mar. 4,
1909, ch. 321, § 37, 35 Stat. 1096; Mar. 4, 1909, ch. 321,
§ 178a, as added Sept. 27, 1944, ch. 425, 58 Stat. 752).
This section consolidates said sections 88 and 294 of
title 18, U.S.C., 1940 ed.
To reflect the construction placed upon said section
88 by the courts the words ‘‘or any agency thereof’’
were inserted. (See Haas v. Henkel, 1909, 30 S. Ct. 249, 216
U. S. 462, 54 L. Ed. 569, 17 Ann. Cas. 1112, where court
said: ‘‘The statute is broad enough in its terms to include
any conspiracy for the purpose of impairing, obstructing,
or defeating the lawful functions of any department
of government.’’ Also, see United States v.
Walter, 1923, 44 S. Ct. 10, 263 U. S. 15, 68 L. Ed. 137, and
definitions of department and agency in section 6 of
this title.)
The punishment provision is completely rewritten to
increase the penalty from 2 years to 5 years except
where the object of the conspiracy is a misdemeanor. If
the object is a misdemeanor, the maximum imprisonment
for a conspiracy to commit that offense, under
the revised section, cannot exceed 1 year.
The injustice of permitting a felony punishment on
conviction for conspiracy to commit a misdemeanor is
described by the late Hon. Grover M. Moscowitz, United
States district judge for the eastern district of New
York, in an address delivered March 14, 1944, before the
section on Federal Practice of the New York Bar Association,
reported in 3 Federal Rules Decisions, pages
380–392.
Hon. John Paul, United States district judge for the
western district of Virginia, in a letter addressed to
Congressman Eugene J. Keogh dated January 27, 1944,
stresses the inadequacy of the 2-year sentence prescribed
by existing law in cases where the object of the
conspiracy is the commission of a very serious offense.
The punishment provision of said section 294 of title
18 was considered for inclusion in this revised section.
It provided the same penalties for conspiracy to violate
the provisions of certain counterfeiting laws, as are applicable
in the case of conviction for the specific violations.
Such a punishment would seem as desirable for
all conspiracies as for such offenses as counterfeiting
and transporting stolen property in interstate commerce.
A multiplicity of unnecessary enactments inevitably
leads to confusion and disregard of law. (See reviser’s
note under section 493 of this title.)
Since consolidation was highly desirable and because
of the strong objections of prosecutors to the general
application of the punishment provision of said section
294, the revised section represents the best compromise
that could be devised between sharply conflicting
views.
A number of special conspiracy provisions, relating
to specific offenses, which were contained in various
sections incorporated in this title, were omitted because
adequately covered by this section. A few exceptions
were made, (1) where the conspiracy would constitute
the only offense, or (2) where the punishment
provided in this section would not be commensurate
with the gravity of the offense. Special conspiracy provisions
were retained in sections 241, 286, 372, 757, 794,
956, 1201, 2271, 2384 and 2388 of this title. Special conspiracy
provisions were added to sections 2153 and 2154 of
this title.
Title 18 U.S.C. 1519 provides:
Whoever knowingly alters, destroys, mutilates,
conceals, covers up, falsifies, or makes a
false entry in any record, document, or tangible
object with the intent to impede, obstruct, or
influence the investigation or proper administration
of any matter within the jurisdiction of
any department or agency of the United States
or any case filed under title 11, or in relation to
or contemplation of any such matter or case,
shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not
more than 20 years, or both.
Outcome: Defendant was found not guilty on six counts and the jury deadlocked 9 to 3 in favor of conviction on the other counts.
The Government will re-try the defendant on the counts upon which the jury could not decide.
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments: Editor's Comment: This case started before Christmas, 2013 and the jury was sent home over the holidays. This may have had an impact on the disagreement between the jurors.