Crim, FRCrimP
Indictment not duplicative, as fraudulent schemes are inherently complex, and the scheme had a discrete sole desired outcome - a desire to score a run, not to hit a double and then steal two bases.
No variance from indictment given the diversity of interests of those who sustained losses, e.g., lenders, borrowers. No prejudice, as single theory.
The misstatements to lenders need only have a tendency to influence the lenders decisions to be considered material -- actual reliance need not be proven.
Given the structure and conduct of deft's organization, intent can be fairly inferred.
Court'd decision to deny funding for expert witness was without clear error, given concerns as to materiality and admissibility.
Where ten of the eleven counts are severed just before the case goes to the jury, a general directive to ignore the evidence offered in support of the counts sufficed.
Restitution challenge waived by spoken acceptance by counsel at trial, despite lack of victim statements.
http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/14-1325P-01A.pdf
Since 2011. An occasional commonplacing of the U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal.
Neither an authoritative statement of the law nor legal advice. Quick work.