US v. Gallagher: Gallagher met Kalugin, who was in the United States on a student visa, while in law school in California. They were married in 2015 and began the process of getting Kalugin his citizenship. They moved to Virginia in 2016, so Gallagher could become a foreign service officer. Shortly thereafter, however, Kalugin returned to California, obtaining a new ID that listed his address in that state. Between 2016 and 2018, Gallagher moved to Mexico to begin her service, Kalugin travelled to Virginia twice for immigration interviews, and he received his citizenship (in accelerated fashion due to Gallagher’s job). Kalugin then briefly moved to Mexico with Gallagher, but left after a month. Gallagher filed for divorce, listing their separation date as May 1, 2016, before either of Kalugin’s immigration interviews.
They were charged with conspiring to falsely obtain naturalization and citizenship for Kalugin and two substantive counts, one based on Kalugin making four materially false statements in a form submitted as part of the process and the other on two false statements he made during his final interview. They were found guilty on all counts, with Kalugin sentenced to six months in prison and Gallagher to 15 months.
On appeal, the Fourth Circuit vacated their convictions on all counts, although on different grounds. After concluding that there was sufficient evidence to sustain all the convictions, the court looked to the count based on the form Kalugin had filed, noting that while it alleged four different false statements the jury’s verdict was a general one “without specifying the statement(s) on which that verdict was based.” Post verdict, however, the district court had correctly ruled that one of those statements could not have supported a conviction because Kalugin’s answer was literally true, if misleading. The jury was allowed to consider a “legally inadequate theory” of conviction and it was not clear the jury necessarily relied on another, legally adequate one. As to the other two counts, they required vacation because the district court had abused its discretion by excluding evidence of Facebook messages Gallagher and Kalugin shared with each other after the spring of 2016, when the Government alleged the marriage was already over. The court concluded that they were admissible either as non-hearsay or under an exception for statements showing a defendant’s “then-existing state of mind.”
Congrats to the Defender office in EDVA (and co-counsel) on the win!
No comments:
Post a Comment