After being convicted in a trial by jury for conspiracy to commit wire fraud and three counts of wire fraud, the defendant, J. Patrick Brester, was sentenced to four concurrent six-year prison terms and was ordered to pay over $1.2 million in restitution. His co-conspirators had all accepted plea agreements for their conspiracy to commit wire fraud charges, and readily admitted this at Brester’s trial.
As the case unfolded, prosecutors found that the loss amount was greater than they had originally discovered. Brester’s co-conspirators had accepted their plea agreements before Brester was indicted, and had agreed to testify against him. The government offered him “a plea agreement with the same loss amount as his co-conspirators, but he rejected it (United States v. J. Patrick Brester, No. 13–15311, 11th Cir. 2015).” During sentencing, the government revealed that the amount agreed to in the plea agreements reduced the advisory sentencing guidelines by two levels. Further, the government argued that the loss amount for Brester’s sentence should be based on all the losses discovered, including those uncharged. The defendant’s counsel denied that he had been informed that the loss amount of his co-conspirators’ would be limited. The prosecutor conceded that she had offered the defendant the same deal, but had not informed him of the limited amount agreed to with the co-conspirators.
Later, Brester would appeal on the grounds that his rights were violated under Brady vs Maryland because the government had not disclosed the limited loss amount. The 11th Circuit Court would find that although the prosecutor should have disclosed this evidence, the evidence in question would not have affected the outcome of the trial. The Court also considers whether or not it has jurisdiction to consider this appeal. Because the defendant filed both an appeal, and a motion for a new trial, the Court fell back on a previous ruling in United States vs Wilson, 94 F.2d 1245, 1251 (11th Cir.1990), and found they had jurisdiction.
For full text of the case and further details of the Court’s findings, click here.