Criminal: Former Baltimore City state’s attorney’s mortgage fraud conviction vacated

Where the former Baltimore City state’s attorney was convicted of mortgage fraud, but the jury was improperly instructed regarding venue, and the error was not harmless, the mortgage fraud conviction and resulting forfeiture were vacated.

Background

Marilyn Mosby, the former Baltimore City State’s Attorney, was convicted of mortgage fraud and perjury in bifurcated jury trials. On appeal, appellant asserts that her convictions for perjury should be vacated because the question on the predicate document upon which her perjury convictions were based was fundamentally ambiguous. She additionally asserts that the district court erroneously admitted evidence regarding appellant’s use of the funds she obtained as a result of her perjury.

As to her mortgage fraud conviction, appellant asserts that it should be vacated because the district court gave the jury an erroneous venue instruction, the weight of evidence did not support the jury’s finding with respect to venue and the district court improperly permitted cross examination about appellant’s perjury convictions.

Last, appellant asserts that the district court’s forfeiture order, which was predicated on her mortgage fraud conviction, must be vacated because it was not authorized by statute and was unconstitutionally excessive.

Ambiguity

Appellant argues the question on the distribution request form asking whether the applicant had suffered “adverse financial consequences” was a “fundamentally ambiguous question,” which could not serve as the basis for a perjury conviction as a matter of law. The court disagrees.

The district court explained how “adverse financial consequences” is “a phrase with a meaning about which [persons] of ordinary intellect could agree,” by its instruction that “[a]dverse financial consequences means an unfavorable or negative outcome related to money. This simple and accurate definition of the phrase, “adverse financial consequences” is one this court has no trouble believing people of ordinary intellect would understand.

Limine

Appellant asserts that the district court erred in ruling in limine that the government could admit evidence as to how appellant used the $90,000 she withdrew from her retirement accounts. Appellant argues that evidence regarding her use of the $90,000 was irrelevant and, alternatively, unduly prejudicial and confusing to the jury. Her contentions are without merit.

Venue

Appellant asserts that the district court erroneously instructed the jury on venue in her mortgage fraud trial. The court agrees. By instructing the jury that “[i]t [wa]s sufficient to [establish venue] if any act in furtherance of the crime occurred within the District of Maryland,” the district court permitted the jury to establish venue based on mere preparatory acts. Nor was the error harmless. Instead, on this record, the jury could indeed have determined that the government did not meet its burden to establish venue in the District of Maryland.

Appellant’s conviction for mortgage fraud is vacated and remanded for further proceedings. As a result of this decision, the forfeiture order related to appellant’s Longboat Key Condo, which was obtained as the fruit of the alleged mortgage fraud, is also vacated.

Affirmed in part, vacated in part and remanded.

Concurring/dissenting opinion

Niemeyer, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part:

The majority opinion sustains Marilyn Mosby’s venue-related challenges to her conviction of mortgage fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1014. Mosby contends (1) that the government failed to introduce evidence sufficient to show that the crime was committed in Maryland and (2) that the district court’s venue instruction was erroneous. I would reject both arguments and affirm the district court’s judgment.

United States v. Mosby, Case No. 24-4304, July 11, 2025. 4th Cir. (Thacker), from DMD at Baltimore (Griggsby). Daniel Stephen Volchok for Appellant. David Christian Bornstein for Appellee. VLW 025-2-258. 48 pp.