United States v. Vigneau

187 F.3d 70 (1st 1999)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Patrick and Mark Vigneau, brothers, were convicted after a lengthy trial on charges growing out of their participation in a drug distribution scheme. From around February 1995 to at least the end of that year, Patrick Vigneau (D) and Richard Crandall conducted a venture to acquire marijuana and steroids. Crandall sent the drugs to D in Rhode Island and southeastern Massachusetts. D distributed the drugs to retail dealers and used others to assist him, including his brother and Joseph Rinaldi. D transmitted funds to Crandall primarily through Western Union money orders. D often used false or borrowed names to send the monies. Timothy Owens frequently picked up the checks from Western Union, cashed them, and gave the money to Crandall. Wishing to expand the operation they purchased two vans in El Paso in March 1995 and registered one in D's name and the other in Crandall's name. They also used U-Haul trucks filled with cheap furniture and concealed the marijuana, which was shrink-wrapped in plastic, behind the furniture. In September 1995, the DEA intercepted an Airborne Express package with several pounds of marijuana and some steroids. In December 1995, Owens and one Randy Panahi were making a U-Haul delivery of marijuana to D when they were halted by the Missouri Highway Patrol. They agreed to cooperate secretly with the DEA. The authorities also secured Crandall's cooperation. D knew that Owens and Panahi were now cooperating with the agents, he did not know that Crandall was doing so as well. D was charged and convicted. D appealed; the district court erred in allowing the government to introduce, without redaction and for all purposes, Western Union's 'To Send Money' forms, primarily in support of the money laundering charges. For some transfers, the government had the forms completed by the sender, but for most, it had only computer records. D claims that his name, address, and telephone number on the 'To Send Money' forms were inadmissible hearsay used to identify D as the sender.