It’s been a slow month for summary orders, but at last the court has eked out three of them worth noting.

First, in United States v. Spencer, No. 06-2517-cr (2d Cir. February 26, 2008), the court reversed both defendants’ conviction of conspiracy to commit bankruptcy fraud because the judge erroneously charged the jury that the defendant who testified had a “deep personal interest in the outcome of his prosecution” that created “a motive for false testimony.”

The “mandate rule” prohibits relitigating on remand issues that the appellate court has already ruled on. In United States v. Argentina, No. 06-1989-cr (2d Cir. February 26, 2008), the court noted that there is an exception to the mandate rule for “cogent and compelling reasons” such as new evidence; here, however, any error in the district court’s refusal to apply the exception was harmless.

Finally, in United States v. Sutton, No. 06-2522-cr (February 11, …

United States v. Elfgeeh, No. 06-0638-cr (2d Cir. February 14, 2008) (Kearse, Sack, CJJ, Mills, DJ)

Abad Elfgeeh, assisted by his nephew, Aref, ran a money-transfer business out of an ice cream parlor in Brooklyn that funneled money to Yemen and a host of other countries. Although the case had early on been linked to a large-scale terrorism investigation, the defendants were charged only with financial crimes. The district judge took pains to keep the issue of terrorism out of the trial, and the main issues on appeal related to the defendants’ concerns that the trial was nevertheless tainted by its specter.

A. The Terrorism Stuff

1. Testimony

During the trial, an FBI agent mentioned terrorism in response to two of a defense attorney’s questions on cross-examination. The district judge promptly instructed the jury that this was a case about “banking,” and “ha[d] noting to do with terrorism.” Later, when …