United States v. Jaspreet Kaur , 525 F. App'x 143 ( 2013 )

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
________________
No. 12-1795
________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
JASPREET KAUR,
Appellant
________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Criminal Action No. 2-09-cr-00546-002)
District Judge: Honorable Michael M. Baylson
________________
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
April 15, 2013
Before: AMBRO, HARDIMAN, and COWEN, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: April 24, 2013)
________________
OPINION
________________
AMBRO, Circuit Judge
Appellant Jaspreet Kaur appeals the District Court‟s order of judgment for her
conviction for one count of conspiracy to commit money laundering in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 1956(h) and twelve counts of money laundering in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 1956(a)(1)(B)(i). For the reasons below, we affirm the District Court‟s judgment.1
The Government argued at trial that Kaur engaged in a series of money laundering
transactions at the urging of her codefendant, Mohit Vohra, after his arrest for
transporting drugs. In pertinent part, Vohra was transporting a significant quantity of
cocaine in his 18-wheel truck during a March 21, 2009 traffic stop. Four days following
this stop, two checks made out to Kaur were issued from Vohra‟s business checking
account totaling $86,500. Both checks contained memos suggesting they were issued as
loan repayments, though a financial analyst testified at trial that there was no evidence of
any loan between Vohra and Kaur. These checks were rejected by Vohra‟s bank because
the authorizing signature appeared invalid.
Between March 26, 2009 and March 31, 2009, Vohra phoned Kaur ten times from
the federal detention center. On March 30, an officer returned some of Vohra‟s personal
property to Kaur, and explained to her that Vohra had been arrested with “a lot of cocaine
in his car.” App. at 258. That same day, Kaur began a series of online transfers from
Vohra‟s personal checking account to her own. These transfers culminated on July 10,
2009, and eventually totaled $52,400. Four telephone conversations between Vohra and
Kaur in August 2009 were read to the jury. Notably, in one of those calls, Vohra stated
to Kaur: “Do this, empty my bank.” App. at 284.
1
The District Court had jurisdiction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3231. We have appellate
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
2
Kaur first argues that her motion for acquittal should have been granted, as there
was insufficient evidence to support her convictions for money laundering and
conspiracy to commit money laundering. When we review a jury verdict for sufficiency
of the evidence, “„we must consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the
government and affirm the judgment if there is substantial evidence from which any
rational trier of fact could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.‟” United States v.
Gatlin, 613 F.3d 374, 380 (3d Cir. 2010) (quoting United States v. Brown, 3 F.3d 673,
680 (3d Cir. 1993)). In particular, Kaur argues that there was no evidence introduced
against her proving that the funds at issue were actually the proceeds of illegal drug sales.
See United States v. Morelli, 169 F.3d 798, 804 (3d Cir. 1999) (explaining that money
laundering must “involv[e] the proceeds of specified unlawful activity”).
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the Government, we conclude
that there is sufficient circumstantial evidence to establish that these funds were the
proceeds of illegal drug sales. As the District Court concluded, “the structure of the all-
cash deposits and Vohra‟s participation in a large-scale and dangerous drug transport
scheme . . . tended to prove that he had been involved with drugs in the past.” United
States v. Vohra, No. 09-546, 2012 WL 1578105, at *8 (E.D. Pa. May 4, 2012).
Moreover, the reoccurring nature of the deposits—distinct from Vohra‟s reported sources
of income—tends to suggest the existence of illegal financial activity. And the amount
eventually withdrawn ($52,400) was nearly identical to this amount attributable to
unknown sources ($52,600). Finally, as the District Court noted, Vohra‟s concern that
the Government would block his account supports the illicit nature of those funds. Thus
3
the jury could conclude that the money in Vohra‟s accounts was the result of drug
trafficking.
Kaur also argues that the District Court erred in refusing to grant her a separate
trial from her co-defendant. We review a refusal to grant severance for abuse of
discretion. United States v. Hart, 273 F.3d 363, 369 (3d Cir. 2001). “Participants in a
single conspiracy should ordinarily be tried together for purposes of judicial efficiency
and consistency, even if the evidence against one is more damaging than that against
another.” United States v. Ward, 793 F.2d 551, 556 (3d Cir. 1986). As such, severance
should be granted “„only if there is a serious risk that a joint trial would compromise a
specific trial right of one of the defendants, or prevent the jury from making a reliable
judgment about guilt or innocence.‟” United States v. Silveus, 542 F.3d 993, 1006 (3d
Cir. 2008) (quoting Zafiro v. United States, 506 U.S. 534, 539 (1993)). And, even where
a district court abuses its discretion in this regard, “reversal is not required absent a
demonstration of „clear and substantial prejudice resulting in a manifestly unfair trial.‟”
United States v. Reyeros, 537 F.3d 270, 286 (3d Cir. 2008) (quoting Hart, 273 F.3d at
370).
In addressing the necessity of severance, the issue is “„whether the jury can
reasonably be expected to compartmentalize the evidence as it relates to separate
defendants.‟” Ward, 793 F.2d at 556 (quoting United States v. Wright-Barker, 784 F.2d
161, 175 (3d Cir. 1986)). Kaur argues that a separate trial was warranted because the
Government was seeking to introduce a prejudicial tape-recorded conversation between
her co-defendant and a third-party “drug mastermind.” In allowing the evidence to be
4
presented, the trial judge issued several instructions that the conversation was only
admissible against Kaur‟s codefendant, and we see no indication that this was an
exceptional case whereby the jury was unable to adhere to the straightforward directive to
compartmentalize this conversation. See, e.g., Zafiro, 506 U.S. at 540 (“[E]ven if there
were some risk of prejudice, here it is of the type that can be cured with proper
instructions, and „juries are presumed to follow their instructions.‟” (quoting Richardson
v. Marsh, 481 U.S. 200, 211 (1987))). Kaur therefore has failed to carry her “heavy
burden” in demonstrating that severance was required. United States v. Urban, 404 F.3d
754, 775 (3d Cir. 2005) (quotation marks and citation omitted).
Finally, Kaur argues that she was denied a fair trial and is entitled to a new one
due to prosecutorial misconduct in the Government‟s rebuttal comments to the jury. In
his closing to the jury, Kaur‟s trial counsel explained that it was “commonsense” that
“[d]rug dealers don‟t deposit their money in the bank,” and that “one thing you will never
find drug dealers doing[] is walking into a bank or mailing it to a bank, or putting it in an
ATM machine.” App. at 510. In rebuttal, the attorney for the Government explained to
the jury that, “contrary to what [Kaur‟s attorney] says, [the Government attorney‟s]
experience [was], and perhaps [theirs was,] that, indeed, drug dealers do deposit money
into their bank accounts.” Id. at 533. Trial counsel objected to the prosecutor‟s
statement, and the District Court overruled the objection.
The Government concedes that, “[i]n a vacuum, this comment would be
inappropriate,” Appellee‟s Br. at 42, but that it was permissible as a direct response to
Kaur‟s attorney‟s claim. When judging the effect of improper comments, “we must
5
apply a harmless error analysis, looking to see if „it is highly probable that the error did
not contribute to the judgment.‟” United States v. Mastrangelo, 172 F.3d 288, 297 (3d
Cir. 1999) (emphasis in original) (quoting United States v. Zehrbach, 47 F.3d 1252, 1265
(3d Cir. 1995) (en banc). Here, we are confident that any such error did not contribute to
the judgment. It is clear from the trial transcript that the prosecutor‟s statement was a
direct response to Kaur‟s attorney‟s appeal to the jurors‟ common sense. Even assuming
the Government did not have a particularly strong case overall, and though there were no
curative instructions issued, we are nonetheless convinced that this comment was on its
face—as a competing perspective to Kaur‟s attorney‟s suggestion—narrowly limited in
its scope and relationship to the overall proceedings. See United States v. Dispoz-O-
Plastics, Inc., 172 F.3d 275, 286 (3d Cir. 1999) (noting factors to consider). We thus
conclude that any error in regard to the Government‟s rebuttal comment was harmless.
In this context, we affirm the judgment of the District Court.
6