Jailed Wis Vet Makes Due Process, Evidence Arguments in Appeal

Vietnam-era veteran Keith Roberts who is serving 48 months on trumped-up charges of federal wire fraud has filed his brief before the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

The case is entitled No. 07-1546 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. KEITH A. ROBERTS, Defendant-Appellant, (On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin).

The brief makes due process and insufficient-evidence arguments.

The listed arguments include:

I. The District Court Erred in Denying the Appellant's Motions to Dismiss, as the Court's Exercise of Jurisdiction Constituted a Denial of the Appellant's Right to Due Process, Due to the Pending Appeal Before the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims.

II. The Evidence Presented at Trial Was Insufficient to Sustain a Conviction for Wire Fraud.

A. The Evidence Offered at Trial did not Establish, Beyond a Reasonable Doubt, that More than a Minor Portion of the Appellant’s Account of the Incident was Misrepresented to the VA.

B. The Evidence Offered at Trial did not Establish, Beyond a Reasonable Doubt that the Appellant Intentionally Misrepresented Facts to the VA.

C. The Evidence Offered at Trial did not Establish, Beyond a Reasonable Doubt that the Alleged Misrepresentations were Material.

D. The Evidence Offered at Trial did not Establish, Beyond a Reasonable Doubt that the Alleged Misrepresentations were Made with the Intent to Defraud.

III. The Appellant’s Right to Due Process was Violated When the Government Withheld Material Information.

IV. The District Court Erred in Applying an Enhancement to the Appellant’s Sentence, as Such Was Not Submitted for Proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt.

CONCLUSION
The Appellant submits that his constitutional rights were violated in this case, and that he was unjustly convicted and sentenced. The Appellant asks that this court look at the facts of this matter, and apply the correct standards of review, to reach a reasonable and fair conclusion in which the Appellant’s convictions and sentence are vacated. In the alternative, the Appellant requests that this Court remand the case for re-trial, pending the conclusion of the Appellant’s administrative appellate measures.

###