United States v. Petters, No. 10-1843 (8th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this CaseDefendant was convicted of crimes related to his involvement in a multi-billion dollar Ponzi scheme and was sentenced to 50 years imprisonment and 3 years of supervised release. Defendant appealed, challenging his conviction and sentence. The court held that defendant's Sixth Amendment rights were not violated when the district court sealed a cooperating witness's United States Marshals Service's Witness Security Program (WITSEC) file, limited defendant's ability to reference the witness by name at a pretrial hearing, prevented defendant from introducing the file into evidence, and prohibited the use of the WITSEC file to impeach the witness. The court also held that the district court properly denied defendant's proffered jury instructions. The court further held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's motion to change venue. The court rejected defendant's argument that the district court committed procedural error in sentencing. Accordingly, the court affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence.
Court Description: Criminal case - Criminal law and sentencing. District court did not abuse its discretion in prohibiting defendant from introducing a witness's Witness Security Program file as the information in the file was collateral to the crimes alleged in defendant's indictment and admitting it would have confused the issues presented to the jury; further, defense counsel was able to vigorously attack the witness's credibility without the file; limits on cross-examination of the witness's connections to organized crime and other criminal activities did not violate defendant's Sixth Amendment rights; sealing the WITSEC file did not deprive defendant of a public trial; instructions adequately stated defendant's defense and rejection of his proposed instructions was not error; no error in denying motion for change of venue based on media coverage of Petters' offenses and business collapse as the publicity had died down before trial, and the district court took adequate steps to identify and eliminate any veniremember who had formed an opinion about defendant's guilt; district court gave adequate consideration to the 3553(a) factors.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.