Question

Read the case of State of West Virginia v. Keith O. Peoples with an open mind as a juror in the case. Page 157.

Discussion Questions:

1. Is Officer Keith O. People charged with a white collar crime? Explain.
2. Are the three elements of the fraud triangle present in this case? If so identify and explain.
3. Fraud is an “intent” crime. Absent a confession, the state attempted to establish Peoples’s intent via circumstantial evidence. Discuss the concept of intent. Describe the circumstantial evidence compiled by the state’s lead investigator to establish intent.
4. Describe the significance of considering alternative explanations when conducting a fraud investigation. Was it important in this case? Explain your response.
5. What evidence was presented by the prosecutor in this case?
6. What augments were presented by the defense in this case to combat the prosecutor’s case?
7. What impact, if any, do you think Peoples’s failure to testify had on the jury’s deliberations?
8. Based on the case summary, do you think Peoples was guilty of fraud? Explain your position.

Answer 1

1.      A civil case is normally between individuals or organizations, whereas a criminal case involves a wrong against society.

A civil case starts with a complaint that a person or organization has been harmed by another. A criminal case starts with an accusation of a violation of law (criminal complaint), which may be followed by a criminal investigation and an indictment.

The standard of proof in a criminal case is “beyond a reasonable doubt.†The standard of proof in a civil case is generally a “preponderance of the evidence.â€

The sanctions in a civil case generally involve money—that is, economic damages. The sanctions in a criminal case are much more extreme, involving fines, penalties, incarceration, and even capital punishment.

A defendant in a criminal case is entitled to an attorney. If a defendant cannot afford one, an attorney (and expert witness fees) is provided by the state, as well as funds for expert witness fees. Parties to a civil action must engage their own attorneys.

2.      Beyond a reasonable doubt is the highest standard of proof. This means that the evidence must remove all uncertainty in the minds of a trier of fact. A probability cannot be assigned but the standard is higher than a preponderance of the evidence. In the court’s instructions to the jury, it was presented as “proof of such a convincing character that a reasonable person would not hesitate to rely and act upon it.â€

3.      Intent is defined by Black’s Law Dictionary as “a state of mind accompanying an act.†As such, a person must have the resolve to perform an act. In other words, a person must have meant to perform an act.

The circumstantial evidence compiled by the state’s lead investigator to establish intent in the Peoples case included payroll records from the police department and the mall from Jan. 1, 2001, to August 31, 2004. A comparison of the times worked was developed, and 478 overlapping hours were discovered. This number was later reduced to 100 due to reasonable explanations for some of the overlapping hours provided by the defense. Second, testimony from TCM’s security director and TCM’s general manager confirmed that their employees are not supposed to be “on duty†with the police department while working at the mall, as well as the accuracy of the time clock used to record time on the job. The common sense theme was “you can’t be in two places at the same time.â€

4.      The significance of considering alternative explanations when conducting a fraud investigation relates to the ability to arrive at a conclusion that incorporates due professional care. When using a scientific approach, possible explanations are considered and either accepted or rejected based on their individual merits. The fewer the possible alternative explanations, the greater the reliability of the evidence in terms of probative value.

Alternative explanations were important in this case. The prosecution did not consider other possible explanations for the time overlaps, such as being off duty for things like extended overtime and meritorious service even though the time records showed the officer was still working. This was approved department operating practice. This early release policy, authorized exits from the mall, and payroll errors were other areas where alternative explanations were appropriate, but were not considered by the prosecution.

5.      The three conditions generally present when fraud occurs are pressure, opportunity, and rationalization. Pressure: Peoples worked overtime to meet financial needs. Opportunity: Police officers are not subject to direct observation, which could provide an opportunity to double dip. Rationalization: Everyone does it; I’m underpaid and underappreciated.

6.      The court’s instructions to the jury are important to ensure that members of the jury follow the law in order to perform their function as a trier of fact. The court’s instruction clarifies how a jury should go about their duty, what evidence they may consider, and how they should interpret expert testimony as well as the lack of testimony by the defendant.

7.      Peoples’s failure to testify should have had no impact on the jury’s deliberations. The court’s instruction clearly points out that the defendant is not required to testify and the burden of proof is the responsibility of the state.

8.      The court’s instructions aside, opening and closing arguments are very important components of a trial. Opening statements provide the first opportunity for each side to connect with the jury and share their respective stories. Closing arguments provide the final words, the last chance to identify a failure in the opposing side’s case, a failure to produce evidence as promised, or a failure to respond to the evidence presented.

9.      Adversarial bias is the introduction of bias into a deliberative process when both parties can choose experts that have opinions that fit the needs of their case. Confirmation bias is the tendency of people to favor information that supports their opinion. A case can be made that the use of Cpt. John Tabaretti as a primary witness for the prosecution is indicative of adversarial bias, as the state did not employ an independent forensic accountant. Confirmation bias is exhibited by Cpt. Tabaretti in the manner in which he used his spreadsheet to match hours, and when his analysis confirmed his belief about double dipping, he did not pursue alternative explanations.

10. After more than eight hours of deliberation, the jury found Cpl. Peoples not guilty of fraudulent schemes. On June 1, 2009, Cpl. Keith Peoples was restored to active duty with CPD. Subsequent interviews of jury members indicated that they viewed the state’s evidence as too uncertain to support a guilty verdict. Thus, the prosecution was unable to prove intent.