## Facts

- William R. Kennedy, Jr. co-founded and served as president of Western Monetary Consultants, Inc. (WMC), a business selling precious metals and coins.
- WMC marketed precious metals as an inflation hedge through literature mailings and investor seminars.
- Customers purchased metals with cash or through down-payments paired with bank-financed loans; WMC quoted an approximate price, then purported to “lock in” a price through its trading department before receiving customer funds.
- The government alleged WMC frequently failed to buy and deliver metals as promised, delayed fulfillment, and diverted customer funds to other uses, including futures speculation, political/ideological causes, operating expenses, and executive compensation.
- Kennedy asserted the failure to fulfill orders resulted from mismanagement rather than intentional fraud.
- A grand jury returned a 109-count indictment charging racketeering, mail fraud, and money laundering arising from an alleged scheme to defraud investors.
- After a seven-week jury trial, Kennedy was convicted of one RICO count, nine counts of mail fraud (including aiding and abetting), and seven counts of money laundering (including aiding and abetting).

## Issues

1. Whether the district court abused its discretion under the Criminal Justice Act (CJA) and violated due process by denying Kennedy’s requests for additional support services.
2. Whether Kennedy established ineffective assistance of counsel on the trial record.
3. Whether the evidence was sufficient to support eight challenged mail fraud convictions.
4. Whether the money laundering convictions were invalid due to an insufficient indictment, improper jury instructions, or insufficient evidence, including whether the charged deposits involved “proceeds” of mail fraud.
5. Whether the district court committed reversible error in excluding certain defense evidence.

## Decision

- The Tenth Circuit affirmed the judgment and Kennedy’s convictions in all respects.
- The district court did not abuse its discretion under the CJA, and the denials of requested services did not render the trial fundamentally unfair.
- Ineffective-assistance claims were not established on the trial record and did not warrant reversal on direct appeal.
- Sufficient evidence supported the mail fraud counts, under the standard requiring affirmance if any rational juror could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt when viewing the evidence favorably to the government.
- The money laundering counts were legally and factually sufficient; the indictment and jury instructions were adequate, and the evidence supported that the transactions involved proceeds and were intended to promote the fraudulent scheme.
- The challenged evidentiary rulings did not constitute reversible error.

## Legal Principles

- Under the CJA, a defendant seeking investigative or expert services must show the requested services are necessary to present an adequate, plausible defense; denial is reviewed for abuse of discretion.
- Due process is violated by trial-management rulings only when they make the proceedings fundamentally unfair.
- Evidence is sufficient to sustain a conviction if, viewing the record in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could find each element beyond a reasonable doubt.
- Money laundering under 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(1)(A)(i) may be proven by showing a financial transaction involving proceeds of specified unlawful activity conducted with intent to promote that unlawful activity; an ongoing fraud scheme may generate “proceeds” for purposes of transactions charged as laundering.

## Conclusion

The court upheld Kennedy’s racketeering, mail fraud, and money laundering convictions, concluding that the trial court’s CJA and evidentiary rulings were within its discretion, the record did not support reversal for ineffective assistance on direct appeal, and the evidence and legal theories—including that the charged transactions involved fraud proceeds used to promote the scheme—were sufficient to sustain the verdicts.


United States v. Kennedy, 64 F.3d 1465 (10th Cir. 1995)