United States v. Amos A. Hopkins

716 F.2d 739, 1982 U.S. App. LEXIS 17881
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
DecidedJune 29, 1982
Docket81-1271
StatusPublished
Cited by21 cases

This text of 716 F.2d 739 (United States v. Amos A. Hopkins) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. Amos A. Hopkins, 716 F.2d 739, 1982 U.S. App. LEXIS 17881 (10th Cir. 1982).

Opinion

*742 HOLLOWAY, Circuit Judge.

This is a direct appeal by the defendant-appellant Amos A. Hopkins from his convictions on eleven counts of mail fraud (Counts I through XI), 18 U.S.C. § 1341, and one count of conspiracy under 18 U.S.C. § 371 (Count XIV) to commit mail fraud and wire fraud, 18 U.S.C. § 1343. A co-defendant, Clifford Aaron Maston, was charged along with Hopkins on two of the mail fraud counts (Counts I and II) 1 and the conspiracy count (Count XIV), and individually on two mail fraud counts (Counts XII and XIII), under 18 U.S.C. § 1341 and 18 U.S.C. § 2, but Maston was acquitted on all these five counts. Hopkins was sentenced to terms of five years’ imprisonment on each of his convictions, the sentences being concurrent.

As grounds for reversal, defendant Hopkins asserts claims that (1) the indictment was fatally defective as to the allegations of the mail fraud counts; (2) the charges and the evidence were insufficient to show a scheme or artifice to defraud; (3) the evidence was insufficient to establish a conspiracy; (4) the indictment and evidence as to counts one through eight in no way showed mailings made in furtherance of a scheme to defraud, as required by § 1341; (5) the trial court erred in refusing to give a good faith defense instruction; and (6) several of the trial judge’s rulings on the admission of evidence and the scope of cross-examination, and several of his statements during the course of the trial, prevented defendant from fully presenting his defense and were prejudicial error.

I

Viewing all the evidence, direct and circumstantial, together with all reasonable inferences therefrom, in the light most favorable to the Government as we must on this appeal from a guilty verdict, United States v. Twilligear, 460 F.2d 79, 81-82 (10th Cir.), the evidence tended to show the following facts.

In substance Hopkins was charged, along with Maston, with devising a scheme to defraud and to obtain money by inducing numerous persons to pay for services in assisting them in filing a claim for an Indian land allotment. 2 The fee for his assist *743 anee varied from approximately $100 to $125 per claim. Defendant is charged in each mail fraud count with knowingly making false representations to obtain money. He allegedly represented that by submitting a specific form (claim form) 3 to the Clark County, Nevada, Recorder’s office an individual could obtain up to 160 acres of public domain land in Nevada to be used for various purposes. He is said to have represented that by virtue of their Indian descent they had a right to the Nevada lands and that the right to the land allotments was provided for by various sections of the United States Code, Indian treaties, and case law. (IX R. 392-93; X R. 947-49; Def.Exhs. 21-26, 28 and 598).

Hopkins and Maston provided land descriptions for the claim forms and instructed the claimants that the forms must be accompanied by a thumbprint and a nominal recording fee. Finally, Hopkins provided a Clark County, Nevada, Recorder’s address to which the claim forms were to be mailed in some instances advising use of certified mail. He represented that after the claim was filed the claimant would have some rights in the land, these representations varying as to different claimants. {E.g., XI R. 46, 300). 4

In 1977 the Clark County, Nevada, Recorder’s office began receiving the claim forms. As of December 1980, the time of trial, the Recorder’s office had received between 1500 and 1800 such forms. Over 400 of these claims were admitted in evidence. (See e.g., V R. containing 386 claims; PI. Exhs. 6-9). The claims contained the same information, included a land description, and were accompanied by a small recording fee. 5

Maston, the acquitted co-defendant, identified numerous Western Union telegraphic money order receipts of money sent by him to Hopkins in Nevada, California, and Texas. Some of the receipts indicate that the money was sent to Hopkins via teller’s cages in gambling casinos in Las Vegas. (E.g., Def.Exhs. 56-58 and 73). The total amount sent was in excess of thirty-two thousand dollars. (X R. 993). Maston also deposited nearly three thousand dollars in a bank account in Hopkins’s name. (Def. Exhs. 110-114).

Government witness Roger Jarrell, an employee of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in Nevada, testified as to the status of the land that some of the claimants had filed for pursuant to Hopkins’s guidance. His testimony indicated that, contrary to Hopkins’s representations, the land was either unavailable for Indian land allotments until it was reclassified, or was patented to other persons. The land claimed by four of the claimants (Counts I, VII, IX, and XI) had been patented into private ownership as early as 1961 and was thus unavailable for Indian land allotments. 6 Jarrell’s testimony also related the status of three other claimants (Counts III, IV, and VI) and revealed that, at the least, the land was classified for retention and *744 would require a petition for reclassification in order to be available for an Indian land allotment. 7

Other testimony revealed that Hopkins sometimes gave the same legal description to different claimants. (IX R. 435). Hopkins also testified as to his familiarity with Hopkins v. United States, 414 F.2d 464 (9th Cir.) (see n.2, supra), Kale v. United States, 489 F.2d 449 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 417 U.S. 915, 94 S.Ct. 2617, 41 L.Ed.2d 220 and Finch v. United States, 387 F.2d 13 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 390 U.S. 1012, 88 S.Ct. 1262, 20 L.Ed.2d 162, all of which in part address the proper method of filing for an Indian land allotment.

Hopkins vigorously denied any fraud or misrepresentation. He testified at length explaining his belief that Hopkins v. United States, supra, did not decide the issues he was fighting for — namely, the right of every Indian “to pursue his remedy under 25 U.S.Code 345, 346” and for the Indians’ rights under 25 U.S.C.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

United States v. Williams
District of Columbia, 2012
United States v. Pray
869 F. Supp. 2d 44 (District of Columbia, 2012)
People v. Poleon
50 V.I. 144 (Superior Court of The Virgin Islands, 2008)
United States v. Cooper
283 F. Supp. 2d 1215 (D. Kansas, 2003)
United States v. Howard
245 F. Supp. 2d 24 (District of Columbia, 2003)
United States v. Logan
241 F. Supp. 2d 1164 (D. Kansas, 2002)
United States v. Welch
198 F.R.D. 545 (D. Utah, 2001)
United States v. John Green
955 F.2d 49 (Tenth Circuit, 1992)
United States v. Batka
724 F. Supp. 350 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 1989)
United States v. Goldblatt, Lynn David
813 F.2d 619 (Third Circuit, 1987)
American Civil Liberties Union v. City of Birmingham
588 F. Supp. 1337 (E.D. Michigan, 1984)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
716 F.2d 739, 1982 U.S. App. LEXIS 17881, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-amos-a-hopkins-ca10-1982.