Vera Zhiry and Pyotr Bondaruk v. United States
1. For the crime of mail fraud, what level of connection between the
fraudulent scheme and the mailing is required to trigger the federal
statute's jurisdictional hook—a substantial connection or one that is
merely remote?
2a. In evaluating materiality in federal fraud cases, Supreme Court
precedent directs the factfinder to evaluate the misrepresentation's
effect on the likely or actual behavior of its recipient. Does the Ninth
Circuit's decision in United States v. Lindsey, 850 F.3d 1009 (9th Cir.
2017) conflict with this definition of materiality by barring
consideration of the recipient's actual behavior to disprove materiality?
2b. When witnesses testify in the government's case-in-chief that
misrepresentations were "significant" to their recipients, does the
district court violate the United States Constitution by barring cross-
examination and substantive evidence that show that the
misrepresentations were actually of no consequence to the recipients?
What level of connection between the fraudulent scheme and the mailing is required to trigger the federal statute's jurisdictional hook?