False names and bank fraud

1. Whether the district court’s erroneous response to a jury note resulted in the jury convicting Petitioner of a conspiracy which was not charged in the indictment. The court told the jury that evidence that both brothers had individual agreements with other co-conspirators was sufficient to convict the two brothers of the single conspiracy charged in counts three and four of the indictment. The district court should have instructed the jury that the government must prove the single conspiracy charged in the indictment and if the government proved some other conspiracy the jury must acquit. The Court of Appeal erroneously held that the court’s response was not error because the response must be viewed in light of the instruction as a whole. This holding is in direct contravention of this Court’s decision in Bollenbach v. United States, 66 S. Ct. 402 (1946) and should be reversed. 2. Whether insufficient evidence existed to convict Petitioner of Bank Fraud or Conspiracy to Commit Bank Fraud. The government failed to prove that Petitioner intended to defraud a financial institution or that Petitioner intended to obtain any of the moneys…or other property owned by or under the custody or control of, a financial institution by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises. The Court of Appeals erroneously held that when a defendant uses a false name to open an account he defrauds the bank of the banks funds. This is error.