Filed: Apr. 15, 2011
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: card (the Chase Card). In this case, the access device, alleged to be unauthorized is the credit card issued in, August of 2008 ending in account number [supplied]. Under Bayard's hypothesis, those transactions did, not violate the statute because he did not physically swipe the, plastic BofA Card.
United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit
No. 10-1112
UNITED STATES,
Appellee,
v.
SERGE ERIC BAYARD,
Defendant, Appellant.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
[Hon. Steven J. McAuliffe, U.S. District Judge]
Before
Torruella, Stahl and Howard,
Circuit Judges.
James M. Fox for appellant.
Donald Feith, Assistant United States Attorney, with whom John
P. Kacavas, United States Attorney, was on brief, for appellee.
April 15, 2011
HOWARD, Circuit Judge. A jury convicted Serge Bayard of
use of an unauthorized access device, 18 U.S.C. § 1029(a)(2)
(2006), and aggravated identity theft, 18 U.S.C. § 1028A (2006).
On appeal he presses a litany of challenges, some counseled and
others pro se, for the purpose of obtaining a new trial. We affirm
his conviction.
I. BACKGROUND
A friendship blossomed between Bayard and Dorothy Shovan,
an elderly widow more than thirty years his senior, shortly after
the death of her husband. A few years later, Bayard moved into
Shovan's home; in exchange for room and board, Bayard helped her
around the house. Bayard's responsibilities increased over time.
By 2004, he was Shovan's driver, repairman, grocery shopper and, as
her health waned, full-time caretaker. Some of these tasks
required monetary outlays and, although the precise nature of their
financial arrangement is unclear, it appears that Bayard used her
credit cards. One of those credit cards -- a Bank of America Visa
card (the "BofA Card") -- is at the center of this case.
On July 25, 2008, after several months of hospitalization
and severe dementia, Shovan died. At some point in August 2008,
Bank of America -- unaware of Shovan's demise -- re-issued the BofA
Card, which was scheduled to expire around that time. Bayard, who
was still living in Shovan's home, intercepted the re-issued BofA
Card and used it to make several purchases at a Wal-Mart store
-2-
totaling about $185. That same day, he used the account number on
the BofA Card to book a three-month trip to a resort in New
Zealand. In e-mail correspondence, Bayard told a resort
representative that he wanted to pre-pay using a credit card that
belonged to his "cousin," who Bayard identified in a subsequent e-
mail as Shovan. The representative agreed and charged Shovan's
account nearly $3,000. Two weeks later, Bayard left for New
Zealand. An attorney for Shovan's estate later discovered the
curious account activity, cancelled the BofA Card, and notified
authorities.
In early 2009, shortly after he returned from abroad,
Bayard was arrested in connection with charges that do not pertain
to this appeal. On April 10, 2009, while Bayard was detained and
awaiting trial in state court, the government filed a criminal
complaint against him in federal court. A two-count indictment,
handed up on April 29, 2009, charged him with use of an
unauthorized access device, 18 U.S.C. § 1029(a)(2),1 and aggravated
identity theft, 18 U.S.C. § 1028A.2 On August 5, 2009, Bayard was
1
Section 1029(a)(2) provides that "[w]hoever . . . knowingly
and with intent to defraud traffics in or uses one or more
unauthorized access devices during any one-year period, and by such
conduct obtains anything of value aggregating $1,000 or more during
that period . . . shall, if the offense affects interstate or
foreign commerce, be punished . . . ."
2
Section 1028A(a)(1) provides that "[w]hoever, during and in
relation to [a violation of section 1029(a)(2), among others],
knowingly transfers, possesses, or uses, without lawful authority,
a means of identification of another person shall, in addition to
-3-
released from state custody. The next day he was arraigned in
federal court, pled not guilty, and waived his right to counsel.
A two-day jury trial began in October. Bayard
represented himself for most of it, but midway through the second
day his stand-by counsel stepped in at Bayard's request. The focal
point of trial was Bayard's authorization vel non to use the BofA
Card after Shovan's death. The government elicited testimony that
Shovan was the only authorized user on the account; Bayard had no
power of attorney over Shovan's financial affairs; and even if she
had informally authorized Bayard to use the BofA Card, that
authorization was only for her benefit and expired upon her death.
Bayard testified that Shovan specifically authorized him to use the
BofA Card as well as her other credit cards, not only for her
benefit but also for his. He further testified that Shovan had
bequeathed $20,000 to him, and that the transactions at issue were,
in his view, advances on money owed. After an afternoon of
deliberation, the jury convicted Bayard on both counts in the
indictment. The court sentenced him to three years in prison.3
This appeal followed.
the punishment provided for such felony, be sentenced to a term of
imprisonment of 2 years."
3
Bayard does not appeal his sentence.
-4-
II. DISCUSSION
We address each of Bayard's seven arguments in turn,
adding background as necessary.
A. The J.P. Morgan Chase Card
Before trial, the government moved in limine to admit
evidence in its case-in-chief concerning a J.P. Morgan Chase credit
card (the "Chase Card"). Bayard applied for the Chase Card in
Shovan's name on June 23, 2008, when she was incapacitated, and --
as with the BofA Card -- used it after her death. According to the
government, that evidence was probative of Bayard's intent and
absence of mistake concerning his use of the BofA Card. The
district court denied the government's motion on the grounds that
Bayard's conduct in connection with the Chase Card was propensity
evidence, see Fed. R. Evid. 404(b), and that its probative value
was substantially outweighed by the risk of prejudice, see Fed. R.
Evid. 403.4 The court, however, left open the possibility that
such evidence might be admissible later on for some other purpose.
During trial, Bayard took the stand and testified that
Shovan specifically authorized him to use her credit cards. On
cross-examination, the government began to question Bayard about
the Chase Card. That prompted Bayard's stand-by counsel, who by
this time had stepped in, to request a sidebar conference. There
he objected on Rule 404(b) grounds. The government responded that,
4
The government does not challenge this ruling on appeal.
-5-
although the court previously had denied its motion in limine on
that basis, a limited line of questioning on cross-examination was
permissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 608(b), because it
sought only to impeach Bayard's credibility. The court agreed with
the government, adding that in this context the value of the
government's proposed inquiry outweighed any possible prejudice
that might result. Bayard declined a limiting instruction and the
sidebar concluded. The government then continued with cross-
examination.
On appeal, Bayard repeats his objection that any
testimony about the Chase Card violated Rule 404(b). His refrain
is misguided. By its very terms, Rule 404(b) prohibits the
admission of a prior bad act "to prove the character of a person in
order to show conformity therewith." See, e.g., United States v.
Landry, 631 F.3d 597, 601 (1st Cir. 2011) ("[Rule 404(b)] prohibits
the admission of prior bad acts to establish an individual's
character or propensity to commit a crime."). But here the
government sought to cross-examine Bayard for the limited purpose
of attacking his character for truthfulness. That is a different
purpose that invokes a different rule. Compare Fed. R. Evid.
404(b), with Fed. R. Evid. 608(b). See generally United States v.
Simonelli, 237 F.3d 19, 22-24 (1st Cir. 2001) (discussing interplay
between Rules 404 and 608; explaining that the latter "'is
centrally concerned with character for veracity, a mode of
-6-
accrediting or discrediting the witness that is based on the same
'propensity' reasoning of Rule 404 but is subject to quite
different rules.'" (quoting United States v. Cudlitz, 72 F.3d 992,
996 (1st Cir. 1996) (internal brackets omitted))).
Whether Bayard's actions in connection with the Chase
Card were fair game under Rule 608(b) is a separate question. The
government says that such questions are left to the discretion of
the trial court -- a proposition that may be correct but not
necessarily dispositive here. Bayard says nothing at all.
Although the applicability of Rule 608(b) to this line of
questioning is less than clear, Bayard's failure to brief the issue
waives it. United States v. Zannino, 895 F.2d 1, 17 (1st Cir.
1990).
That leaves us with Rule 403's balancing test, which
Bayard does make some attempt to address in his brief. Rule 403
states that relevant evidence "may be excluded if its probative
value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair
prejudice, confusion of issues, or misleading the jury." We have
characterized Rule 403 judgments as "battlefield determinations"
subject to "great deference." United States v. Shinderman, 515
F.3d 5, 17 (1st Cir. 2008). "Only rarely -- and in extraordinarily
compelling circumstances -- will we, from the vista of a cold
appellate record, reverse a district court's on-the-spot judgment
concerning the relative weighing of probative value and unfair
-7-
effect." Id. (quoting Freeman v. Package Mach. Co.,
865 F.2d 1331,
1340 (1st Cir. 1988)).
We discern no abuse of discretion here. Bayard does not
adequately explain why his conduct surrounding the Chase Card was
not probative of his credibility, so we assume without deciding
that it was. He does argue that the risk of unfair prejudice was
high, but we disagree. Our review of the government's cross-
examination reveals that it was far from inflammatory. It was also
quite short and limited in scope to what the government had
proposed at the sidebar. And, as noted, Bayard declined the
district court's offer to give a limiting instruction. See
Shinderman, 515 F.3d at 17 ("Furthermore, the court offered to give
a limiting instruction; that the defendant eschewed this course
does not minimize the value of the court's offer."). Given these
circumstances, we are reluctant to second-guess the district
court's judgment in allowing cross-examination to proceed.
B. The CitiBank MasterCard
During its case-in-chief, the government called Jeffrey
Ramos, a custodian of records for Bank of America. Among other
things, Ramos authenticated account statements provided by Bank of
America that reflected charges to the BofA Card. Two of those
charges, in addition to those described earlier, were balance
transfers from a CitiBank MasterCard (the "CitiBank Card"), which
was yet another of Shovan's credit cards that Bayard apparently
-8-
used after her death. On direct examination, the government asked
Ramos a series of questions concerning those transfers. Based on
certain questions Bayard posed on cross, the government sought on
re-direct to clarify Ramos's testimony by referencing a
corresponding set of account statements provided by CitiBank.
Bayard objected on the basis that he never received
copies of the CitiBank records. The government explained that
Bayard had received copies and that they had been marked as an
exhibit, although the exhibit was not yet in evidence. The trial
judge voiced his concern over questioning Ramos about an exhibit
that was not in evidence and that he could not authenticate. The
government ultimately proposed to introduce the CitiBank records by
means of a certification, and then conduct its examination of
Ramos. The court then admitted the CitiBank records over Bayard's
relevancy objection.
On appeal, Bayard argues that the prosecutor's questions
on re-direct concerning the CitiBank Card amounted to prosecutorial
misconduct. According to Bayard, the prosecutor "testified through
his questions that there was another card which was allegedly
obtained through improper means." Bayard did not object on that
ground at trial, so our review is for plain error. United States
v. Sánchez-Berríos, 424 F.3d 65, 73-74 (1st Cir. 2005).
We see no error, plain or otherwise. Bayard does not
identify in his brief the specific questions that he challenges,
-9-
but our independent review of the trial transcript satisfies us
that his hypothesis is unfounded. None of the prosecutor's
questions on re-direct gives us pause, let alone rises to the level
where, in rare cases, we have ordered a new trial. See, e.g.,
United States v. Hardy, 37 F.3d 753, 757 (1st Cir. 1994) (vacating
conviction where the prosecutor drew an analogy between the
defendant's running and hiding from police on the night of the
crime, and running and hiding again at trial by invoking Fifth
Amendment right not to testify); United States v. Manning,
23 F.3d
570, 573 (1st Cir. 1994) (vacating conviction where the prosecutor
suggested that government witnesses cannot lie and urged jury to
"[t]ake responsibility for your community" by convicting the
defendant); United States v. Arrieta-Agressot,
3 F.3d 525, 527 (1st
Cir. 1993) (vacating convictions where the prosecutor urged the
jury to consider case as a battle in war against drugs, and the
defendants as enemy soldiers corrupting "our society").
Separately, Bayard hints in his brief that the
prosecutor's questions provided an improper "shortcut" for the
admission of the CitiBank records. If that cryptic remark is meant
to challenge the admission of the Citibank records, presumably on
Rule 404(b) grounds, the argument is woefully underdeveloped, and
thus waived. Zannino, 895 F.2d at 17. Even if it were not waived,
Bayard's failure to object on that ground below would subject the
argument to plain error review, and under that standard it would
-10-
certainly fail. See Sánchez-Berríos, 424 F.3d at 73 ("[U]nder
plain error review, we have leeway to correct only the most
egregious of unpreserved errors.").
C. The Jury Instructions
During the charge conference, there was considerable
debate as to the identity of the access device in this case. The
government, pointing to the broad statutory definition of "access
device," said that it was the plastic BofA Card itself (either the
expired or re-issued version), the account number embossed on the
plastic, and the Bank of America account to which the card was
linked. See 18 U.S.C. § 1029(e)(1).5 Bayard's counsel took a much
narrower view. He argued that the government must show that Bayard
used an "unauthorized access device," id. § 1029(a)(2) (emphasis
supplied), which is an access device that was "lost, stolen,
expired, revoked, cancelled, or obtained with intent to defraud,"
id. § 1029(e)(3). According to him, evidence adduced at trial
established that Shovan authorized Bayard to use the (by then
expired) BofA Card, along with its number and associated account,
both of which remained unchanged since the time Bayard was
5
Defining "access device" as "any card, plate, code, account
number, electronic serial number, mobile identification number,
personal identification number, or other telecommunications
service, equipment, or instrument identifier, or other means of
account access that can be used, alone or in conjunction with
another access device, to obtain money, goods, services, or any
other thing of value, or that can be used to initiate a transfer of
funds (other than a transfer originated solely by paper
instrument)."
-11-
authorized to use them. Thus, he posited that the only access
device that the government could argue was "unauthorized" was the
re-issued plastic BofA Card, on the theory that it was "stolen" or
fraudulently "obtained" when Bayard intercepted it in August 2008.6
The court agreed with Bayard that, under the rather
unique circumstances of this case, only the re-issued plastic BofA
Card -- and not its account or account number -- was arguably
"unauthorized." Based on that understanding, the court delivered
the following instruction over the government's objection:
The term "access device" means any card, plate,
code, account number, or other means of account access
that can be used alone or in conjunction with another
access device to obtain money, goods, services or any
other thing of value, or that can be used to initiate a
transfer of funds other than a transfer originated solely
by paper instrument. In this case, the access device
alleged to be unauthorized is the credit card issued in
August of 2008 ending in account number [supplied].
The term "unauthorized access device" includes any
credit card that was either stolen or obtained with the
intent to defraud. In this case the government claims
that the defendant stole and/or obtained with the intent
to defraud the Bank of America Visa card, last four
6
This was important because the bulk of Bayard's transactions,
including his New Zealand booking and CitiBank balance transfers,
were executed online or over the phone using only the account or
account number. Under Bayard's hypothesis, those transactions did
not violate the statute because he did not physically "swipe" the
plastic BofA Card. See 18 U.S.C. § 1029(a)(2) (prohibiting "use"
of an "unauthorized access device"). Although he did swipe the
card at Wal-Mart, the amount of his purchases there fell below the
statutory threshold. See id. (imposing liability on purchases of
"value aggregating $1,000 or more" during any one-year period).
We do not address these contentions head-on, however, because
Bayard has not appealed the denial of his motion for judgment of
acquittal.
-12-
digits [supplied], that had been issued to Dorothy
Shovan. Accordingly, the government must prove beyond a
reasonable doubt either that the defendant stole that
credit card or that he obtained it with the intent to
defraud.7
Having gotten what he requested, Bayard now assails the
court's instruction as confusing. In particular, he argues that
listing "account number" as among the possible access devices
"created a serious risk that the jury would be confused as to
whether an account number satisfied the statute." Because Bayard
failed to object to the instruction as delivered, we review for
plain error, Ji v. Bose Corp., 626 F.3d 116, 125 (1st Cir. 2010),
and quickly dispatch his plaint. We see no likelihood of juror
confusion, given the court's clear and repeated statements that the
access device here was the re-issued plastic BofA Card. The phrase
"account number" appears only in a list of what access devices
could be in general. The court was free to include that list,
which closely tracked the statute, for context. Cf. United States
v. Alicea,
205 F.3d 480, 484 (1st Cir. 2000).
D. Remaining Arguments
We briefly address Bayard's four remaining claims raised
in his supplemental pro se brief, and reject the lot.
7
We wish to add that we take no position on the court's
statutory interpretation that led to this instruction. Our
precedent is unsettled and the answer is far from obvious. See,
e.g., United States v. DiPietro, 936 F.2d 6, 7 & n.3 (1st Cir.
1991). We therefore save the question for another day.
-13-
Bayard argues that the district court should have
dismissed the case on speedy trial grounds, because 116 days
elapsed between the return date of the indictment and when he moved
for dismissal. But the critical date, for purposes of the Speedy
Trial Act, was August 7, 2009, the day after he was arraigned in
federal court.8 See 18 U.S.C. § 3161(c)(1) (2006) ("[T]rial . . .
shall commence within seventy days from the filing date (and making
public) of the information or indictment, or from the date the
defendant has appeared before a judicial officer of the court in
which such charge in pending, whichever date last occurs."
(emphasis supplied)); see also United States v. Muñoz-Amado, 182
F.3d 57, 60 (1st Cir. 1999) (rejecting argument in similar
circumstances). The period between that date and the start of
Bayard's trial in October 2009 was well under seventy days.
Next, he asserts that the court denied his requests to
subpoena four individuals, in violation of the Sixth Amendment.
See Fed. R. Crim. P. 17(b). Not true. The transcript from the ex
parte hearing in which Bayard sought subpoenas reveals that he
withdrew his requests for three of those four individuals.9 The
judge took under advisement Bayard's request for the remaining
8
Bayard specifically disavows any claim under the Sixth
Amendment's Speedy Trial Clause. See generally Barker v. Wingo,
407 U.S. 514 (1972).
9
The government does not point this out in its brief. It
explains in a footnote that it was not present at the ex parte
hearing and that a transcript was "not made available."
-14-
individual -- Tania Booth, the New Zealand resort representative --
although it appears that the court never ruled on that particular
request. But at no point thereafter did Bayard ask the trial judge
for an up-or-down ruling, so the issue has been waived. DesRosiers
v. Moran, 949 F.2d 15, 22-23 (1st Cir. 1991). In any event,
because Bayard's e-mail correspondence with Booth was admitted into
the record, her testimony likely would have been cumulative.
Third, Bayard critiques the timing of the district
court's ruling that precluded the government from using a prior
conviction. According to Bayard, by waiting until the last day of
trial to issue its ruling the court "interfered" with his "tactical
decisions," including his decision to proceed pro se. If the court
had ruled earlier, Bayard contends, he would have retained counsel
for the entire trial. We think not. Bayard never indicated below,
in extensive discussions on the matter, that his decision to
proceed pro se hinged on an evidentiary ruling. Moreover, the
record reveals that Bayard asked his stand-by counsel to step in
before the court ruled on the admissibility of his prior
conviction, fatally undermining his claim.
Lastly, Bayard argues that the cumulative effect of the
district court's errors necessitates a new trial. See United
States v. Gonzalez-Melendez, 594 F.3d 28, 37 (1st Cir. 2010)
-15-
(discussing the so-called cumulative error doctrine). But without
any errors, there is nothing to accumulate.10
Affirmed.
10
Bayard's counsel asserted at oral argument that the
government did not satisfy its burden of showing intent to defraud.
The argument comes too late, United States v. Poulin, 631 F.3d 17,
19 n.2 (1st Cir. 2011) (arguments raised at oral argument but not
in a party's initial brief are considered waived), and anyway
Bayard did not appeal the denial of his motion for judgment of
acquittal, see supra note 6.
-16-
