Professional Documents
Culture Documents
No. 13-4711
No. 13-4818
No. 13-4863
EDWARD J. WOODARD,
Defendant Appellant.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District
Judge.
(2:12-cr-00105-RAJ-DEM-3; 2:12-cr-00105-RAJ-DEM-4; 2:12cr-00105-RAJ-DEM-1)
Argued:
Decided:
June 5, 2015
I.
The Bank of the Commonwealth (the Bank) was a community
bank with branches throughout southeastern Virginia and coastal
North Carolina.
its
longtime
Fields
was
Officer.
Chief
its
Executive
Executive
Appellant
Troy
Officer,
Vice
and
President
Brandon
Appellant
and
Woodard
Stephen
Commercial
Loan
(Brandon)
was
indictment
charging
Woodard,
Fields,
Brandon,
and
two
deliberating
for
four
days,
the
jury
returned
Brandon
restitution
payments.
All
three
timely
appeal,
Fields
challenges
the
district
courts
time
evidence
as
hearsay,
its
limitation
of
the
scope
of
evidence
against
him,
certain
evidence
regarding
federal
Troubled
Asset
district
courts
effect
of
the
of
national
district
the
Relief
exclusion
2008
the
Banks
courts
failure
exclusion
to
Program
(TARP)
certain
evidence
financial
crisis
apply
funds,
of
for
and
the
regarding
the
on
the
Banks
II.
We
first
committed
direct
examine
reversible
limit
testimony.
the
error
We
duration
discretion.
Fields
by
review
of
claim
that
limiting
a
the
the
district
witnesss
district
duration
courts
testimony
court
of
decision
for
abuse
his
to
of
Cir. 2007) (citing United States v. Turner, 198 F.3d 425, 429
(4th Cir. 1999)).
of
witnesses,
including
the
time
299-300.
restrictions
district
on
court
defendants
thus
may
ability
limitations
to
reasonable
present
relevant
States
v.
Woods,
710
F.3d
195,
200
(4th
Cir.
2013)
(quoting United States v. Scheffer, 523 U.S. 303, 308 (1998) and
Rock v. Arkansas, 483 U.S. 44, 55-56 (1987)).
Here,
Fields
the
direct
court
notified
examination
began
6
Fields
that
counsel
the
court
well
before
intended
to
move
it
along
through
each
defendants
case.
J.A.
6489.
Once
counsel
that
failed
to
finish
the
direct
examination
within
that
adjournment
additional
afternoon.
that
time
day
for
Ultimately,
until
the
6:40pm
direct
to
the
allow
examination.
court
delayed
Fields
counsel
Throughout
the
into
irrelevant
or
marginally
relevant
lines
of
questioning.
Fields counsel took four days to present his case, despite
his initial estimate that the case would take two to three days.
Fields direct examination lasted seven and one-half hours and
was the longest direct examination of any witness in the case.
In response to counsels objection that he had had insufficient
time
to
address
each
challenged
transaction
during
direct
examination, the court noted that Fields was charged with fewer
counts than two of his codefendants, both of whom had testified
for
shorter
amount
of
time.
Finally,
although
the
court
during
greater
relative
Fields
amount
to
of
his
direct
time
testimony,
that
Fields
codefendants,
we
and
had
to
conclude
in
light
present
that
of
his
the
the
case
district
III.
We next examine Woodards and Brandons claims that the
evidence supporting their convictions for conspiracy to commit
bank fraud under 18 U.S.C. 1349 is insufficient. 1
court
may
set
aside
the
jurys
verdict
on
A reviewing
the
ground
of
The
if
the
interpretations,
evidence
supports
the
decides
jury
different,
which
reasonable
interpretation
to
believe.
charge
testimony
of
Woodards
conviction.
Bank,
of
conspiracy
Eric
testified
Menden
at
to
alone
Menden,
trial
is
that
commit
bank
fraud.
sufficient
longtime
Woodard
had
to
The
support
borrower
from
the
informed
him
that
of
Brandons
properties.
Menden
testified
that
Woodard
did
Brandon
so,
from
and
the
that
Bank.
Menden
This
obtained
money,
the
money
Menden
to
believe
this
testimony
as,
gave
testified,
he
indeed,
was
If the jury
drawing
all
assume
sufficient
to
it
did
sustain
then
this
Woodards
testimony
conviction
alone
for
would
be
conspiracy
to
count.
There is also sufficient evidence against Brandon on the
conspiracy
general
charge.
contractor
To
who
take
one
remodeled
example,
the
Kevin
Banks
Glenn,
Suffolk
the
branch,
J.A. 6634.
is
sufficient
to
support
Brandons
conviction
for
IV.
Based
on
the
foregoing,
Appellants
convictions
and
10