United States v. Charles Truett Emerson

Citations: 16 F.3d 417; 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 8155; 1994 WL 32751Docket: 93-6064

Court: Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit; February 2, 1994; Federal Appellate Court

Combined Opinion SummaryCombined Opinion Original

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Unpublished opinions, while generally disfavored for citation, can be cited if they hold persuasive value on a material issue and are accompanied by a copy of the opinion or if cited orally, with copies provided to the Court and all parties. This ruling follows the General Order of November 29, 1993, which temporarily suspends certain citation rules. 

In the case of United States v. Charles Truett Emerson, the defendant was indicted on five counts of mail fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1341 and convicted on all counts. Emerson received a five-year sentence for each count, with six months to be served in a jail-type institution and the remainder suspended, all to run concurrently. Emerson appealed the convictions and sentence, presenting three arguments for reversal: 

1. A claimed 'non-prosecution agreement' with the U.S. barred the prosecution.
2. The indictment allegedly failed to state a proper mail fraud violation.
3. The exclusion of evidence regarding an earlier acquittal by reason of insanity was erroneous.

The appellate court found no merit in Emerson's arguments and affirmed the convictions. Evidence presented indicated that Emerson solicited funds through advertisements promising significant earnings from a work-at-home program, leading to numerous complaints and an investigation by the Postal Service. The investigation revealed substantial mailings and prompted a complaint from the Postal Service's General Counsel, alleging Emerson was engaged in a fraudulent scheme via the mail.

The Postal Service filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma seeking injunctive relief to detain all mail directed to Emerson and his company, Cottage Industries. During a hearing, the parties reached an agreement in which Emerson consented to cease and desist from certain actions. This agreement explicitly stated that it did not provide Emerson with a defense or release from responsibility for violations of other statutes. Subsequently, a grand jury indicted Emerson on five counts, alleging he defrauded multiple radio stations and newspapers through misleading advertisements, using the mail to solicit advertising while failing to pay the stations for their services.

Emerson moved to dismiss the indictment, claiming that a prior non-prosecution agreement, resulting from a civil case involving a $10 fee from his listeners, protected him from criminal charges related to his activities with Cottage Industries. The district court conducted an evidentiary hearing involving testimonies from Emerson, his attorney, a postal inspector, and an Assistant United States Attorney, ultimately denying his motion to dismiss. Emerson now appeals this ruling, arguing it constitutes reversible error. The hearing revealed that the Postal Service's civil action was based on complaints from listeners who felt defrauded, while simultaneously, the FBI was investigating Emerson's dealings with media outlets, focusing on potential fraud against the radio stations and newspapers rather than the complaints from the listeners.

The judge in the injunctive proceeding, who did not oversee the related criminal case, suggested that the parties negotiate a resolution, leading to a consent decree between Emerson and the government. Under this decree, Emerson agreed to return all funds received and allowed the postmaster in Norman, Oklahoma, to hold mail for Cottage Industries, with specific provisions regarding mail containing $10. Paragraph 9 of the decree specified that it only pertained to the current matter and did not absolve Emerson of any other legal responsibilities.

Emerson contended that he and his attorney had a mutual understanding with the postal inspector and the Assistant U.S. Attorney that he would not face criminal charges related to his operations, including actions concerning five radio stations and other clients. However, the government officials testified that the consent agreement did not cover these actions, and the Assistant U.S. Attorney denied any authority to grant Emerson immunity from prosecution. 

The district court found that Emerson’s claim of a promise not to prosecute was unsupported by the evidence, describing his interpretation as wishful thinking. This conclusion was upheld upon appeal, confirming that the record did not demonstrate any agreement to forgo criminal prosecution.

Additionally, Emerson sought to dismiss the indictment on grounds of vagueness and insufficient charges of mail fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1341. The court denied this motion, affirming that while the indictment may not be perfect, it was sufficiently detailed to meet the requirements of Fed. R. Crim. P. 7(C)(1), which mandates a clear statement of the essential facts constituting the charged offense.

Emerson is indicted for placing advertisements with five radio stations with no intention of payment, constituting mail fraud as he used the mails to perpetrate deception. The mail fraud statute includes false promises and misrepresentation related to future actions, as established in case law. The indictment specifically pertains to the five radio stations and does not encompass fraud against consumers. Emerson did not contest the sufficiency of evidence supporting his guilty verdicts during the appeal. Additionally, Emerson attempted to introduce evidence from a 1975 acquittal for a mail fraud charge based on insanity to argue his incapacity to contract with the radio stations. The district court deemed this evidence irrelevant, as the current case did not involve a contract dispute and Emerson did not plead insanity in this instance. The order and judgment from this case are not binding precedent, except under specific legal doctrines.