Federal Jury Trial Acquittal

Looking back this weekend at one of the most memorable cases of my career, which ended a year ago today.

It was a federal mail fraud case in the Eastern District of California, Sacramento, court.  The US Attorney’s office in Sacramento had charged six defendants in the case, but by the time we started the trial on March 3, 2015, four of the six had pled guilty and agreed to testify against the other two.

The two remaining defendants were my client, Deborah Loudermilk, and a co-defendant named Buena Marshall, who was represented by Attorney Mark Reichel of the Sacramento law firm Reichel & Plesser.  Mark is a very experienced federal criminal defense attorney and former federal public defender who proved to be an excellent co-counsel in this difficult case.

The charges grew out of events that occurred in 2006 during the height of the home mortgage frenzy which ultimately led to the monumental mortgage meltdown of 2008.

The trial took 11 trial days over four weeks.  In the prosecution of the case, the government presented 26 witnesses and more than 300 exhibits.  It took more than 8 years to get the case to trial because the allegations were not even investigated until early 2010 and charges were not filed until October of 2011. During the more than three years that the case was pending, four of the original six defendants entered into “cooperative” plea agreements, by which they agreed to testify against the remaining defendants.

Among the prosecution witnesses were five convicted felons, including the four former co-defendants.  One of the highlights of the trial for the defense came during the testimony of one of these “cooperating witnesses”, who had to admit that my client was not the person he had thought the government investigators were referring to when they interviewed him and that he had never even met Miss Loudermilk. 

In my closing argument (which is reproduced below), I characterized the presentation of these witnesses as a “parade of the horribles”. In a discussion with the attorneys after the conclusion of the trial, a number of the jurors agreed, indicating that they had given little credence to the testimony of the convicted felons.

I also called the case the story of “Debbie and Goliath”, noting that it was investigated by the FBI and the IRS, and that the government was represented in court by three Assistant US Attorneys, a US Attorney’s paralegal and an IRS Special Agent.  Despite the government resources invested in the case, I characterized the investigation against my client as inadequate and a rush to judgment.  Among other things, I pointed out that the investigators failed to record interviews with the suspects and ignored exculpatory evidence provided by Loudermilk.

Unconvinced by the parade of witnesses and blizzard of exhibits (which included thousands of pages of documents), the jury took slightly more than one day to acquit my client of the two charges against her and Miss Marshall of the four charges against her.

During our post-trial discussion with the jurors, they said that they found the failure to record the interviews significant because my client testified that she did not make incriminating admissions described in the summary report prepared by the investigators and testified to in court by the IRS investigator. As a result, jurors indicated that they gave equal weight to the testimony of the investigator and Loudermilk, and therefore disregarded the purported admissions.

The jury foreman also indicated that the government had done a good job of proving the case against those who had already pled guilty, but that the investigation had “cast too wide a net” in ensnaring Loudermilk and Marshall, who were real estate agents in the six purchases at issue.

The case was charged as “mail fraud” because interstate mail services were used to send documents involved in the scheme, which was conceived and executed primarily by two of the co-defendants, Kadesta Harris and Temika Reed. The two received the bulk of the approximately $200,000 in “cash-back-to-buyers” payments that resulted from the six purchases.

Miss Loudermilk testified in her own defense, denying that she was aware that fraud was being committed or that she had any intent to defraud either the sellers or lenders involved in the two transactions in which she was served as an agent. Miss Marshall did not testify, but Mark Reichel in his argument contended that the evidence also failed to prove her participation in the scheme to defraud or that she had intended to defraud anyone.

In the end, the jurors agreed, concluding that the evidence did not show that either defendant had been a knowing participant in the scheme to defraud, that either had committed any act material to the fraud, or that either had exhibited any intent to defraud the lenders in these transactions.

The defeat was a rarity for the US Attorney’s Office, which routinely obtains convictions in nearly all of its cases. In 2014, the cases of 908 criminal defendants were concluded, with 902 of them being convicted, either through guilty pleas or jury verdicts. Only six were acquitted at trial.

It was also the first time in his 23 years on the federal bench that Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr., had presided over a trial in which the defendants were acquitted.

The unusual acquittal was highlighted in some of the news coverage of the case, such as in the Sacramento Bee:


After the trial, Summit Defense presented me with a plaque commemorating the win.

Summit Loudermilk Placque

Harris and Reed were finally sentenced just this month, with Harris getting 17 months in federal prison and Reed 13 months.


Webpage photo

Transcript of my closing argument in U.S. v. Loudermilk:Scan0030Scan0001Scan0002Scan0003Scan0004Scan0005Scan0006Scan0007Scan0008Scan0009Scan0010Scan0011



Forty Years Before the Bench

It was 40 years ago today that I was sworn in as an attorney in the State of California.  After I spent nearly 10 years as a Deputy District Attorney in Orange County, we moved to Marin County in 1985 and I have been in private practice ever since.  I have served primarily as criminal defense counsel, while also working on some plaintiff’s personal injury litigation and for several business law clients.

Since 2008, I have been senior trial counsel for Summit Defense, a Bay Area criminal defense law firm.

Summit Defense Law Offices plaque

During that time, I have represented clients in the state courts of 22 different California counties, from as far north as Butte and as far south as San Diego.


I have also represented clients in four different federal district courts, including the Southern District of New York in Manhattan (the case there was an insider trading prosecution in which the charges against my client were recently dismissed).


My Summit defense clients have included men & women from 21 different countries:  Afghanistan, Argentina, China, El Salvador, Fiji, Guatemala, India, Iran, Ireland, Laos (Hmong), Mexico, Morocco, Nicaragua, Pakistan, the Philippines, Romania, Russia, South Korea, Sri Lanka, Turkey and Vietnam.

In the past 7 years, I have completed 16 major felony trials, ranging from fraud to child molestation to murder. These trials took place in 9 different counties and one federal court (Eastern District of California, Sacramento).

The federal trial was a mortgage fraud case earlier this year before the court’s presiding judge, the Honorable Garland E. Burrell, Jr.  My client and the co-defendant were both found not guilty … the first time in Judge Burrell’s 23 years on the bench that there had been an acquittal in his court.  Summit gave me a plaque commemorating the win:

Summit Loudermilk Placque

In one of my child molestation cases in Santa Clara county in 2011, my client was acquitted of several charges and the jury hung on the others. Ultimately, the DA dismissed the remaining counts and the client was released from custody. After the evidence and arguments were concluded and the jury sent out to deliberate, the judge made some very kind comments about my trial performance.

Summit Villasenor Court's Post-Trial Comments

I previously blogged here about “Why You Should Never Talk to the Cops”:


This blog included a link to a KRON-TV interview that I did on the subject, as well:

Summit Defense KRON-TV Interviewhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KqY2smL1oJo

Also in 2011, I was featured in a special edition of Newsweek magazine:

Summit Defense Newsweek Ad JTR Preview 111121

The Summit Defense webpage is here:


And my Summit Defense Attorney profile is here:



FLA 74

A Day in the Life of an Itinerant Criminal Defense Lawyer

In my current practice of law, working with the Bay Area criminal defense firm Summit Defense, I handle primarily serious felony cases that are likely to have to go to trial.

As a result, I have had Summit cases in 22 different counties (as far north as Butte County and as far south as San Diego) and in four different federal courts, including the Southern District of New York.

Yesterday was a classic example of what this sometimes means, as I had court appearances in San Jose and Auburn … and had to pick up juror questionnaires in Stockton.

Map 150805

I set off on my peripatetic adventures for the day by leaving home at 7:00 am for a 9:30 am appearance in the US District Court, Northern District of California, San Jose Division. I hit heavy traffic on 101 in Marin and stretches of 880 in Oakland and Hayward … as a result of which, the trip took 2:20 and I barely made it to court on time.  After waiting for some time for the case to be called, it took about 20 minutes to finish our appearance.

Once done there, I left at 10:30 for Stockton, where I am in trial in the San Joaquin County Superior Court, to pick up juror questionnaires for review prior to resuming trial next week. That trip took 1:40, which got me there after everything had shut down for the lunch hour. Fortunately, a friendly bailiff was willing to track down the clerk supervisor who had my forms and I was back on the road at 12:30.

This leg of the trip took me to a 1:30 pm appearance in the Placer County Superior Court branch in Auburn for a trial confirmation conference. The trip took 1:35, so I was late, arriving at 2:05. Fortunately (again), I have co-counsel on this case, who was able to appear at 1:30 to let the court know I’d be late … and the court was extremely busy and didn’t care anyway.

In fact, the case didn’t even get called until after the mid-afternoon recess at 3:00 pm and took less than 10 minutes once it was called.

After some post-appearance conversations with the client’s family and my co-counsel, it was back on the road to head home, a trip which took 2:15.

So, for the day, I drove roughly 360 miles and spent 7:50 on the road, all to pick up my questionnaires and make two court appearances which took a combined total of less than 30 minutes.

On the other hand, I did get to listen to more than half of my current audio book!