Defendant’s motion for new trial in her fraud case is denied. One claim is defense counsel’s failure to move to suppress a ring binder of information that came in at trial to help prove fraud. It was properly seized under the documents warrant because it was logically a place information could be found of where the defrauded money went. United States v. Fiore, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 74801 (D. Nev. Apr. 18, 2025). The two opening paragraphs, and then to the Fourth Amendment claim:
Former Las Vegas Councilwoman Michele Fiore was found guilty of fleecing donors out of tens of thousands of dollars that she told them would be used for a memorial statue of a fallen police officer whose senseless killing had impacted the local community. During the eight-day trial, the jury heard from a veritable who’s who of Nevada business and politics, who wrote checks to Fiore’s charitable organization or her political action committee in reliance on her promise that 100% of the donations would be used to fund the statue. But the evidence showed that a development company paid for the statue, and not a dime of the money that Fiore raised was used for that purpose. Instead, each check was quickly converted to cash and spent on Fiore’s personal expenses like rent, cosmetic procedures, and her daughter’s wedding.
With her sentencing on six counts of wire fraud and one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud looming, Fiore moves for acquittal, contending that there was insufficient evidence to convict her. But the law gives great deference to jury verdicts, so the standard for setting one aside for insufficient evidence is high: the court must find that the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, could not have supported the verdict for any rational juror. And the ample evidence of Fiore’s fraud scheme prevents her from meeting that burden. Fiore separately moves for a new trial, arguing that her right to present witnesses in her defense was violated, court errors concerning jury instructions and the admission of evidence deprived her of a fair trial, and her trial counsel provided constitutionally deficient representation. The trial judge may vacate a judgment of conviction and retry the case with a new jury if the interests of justice so require. But Fiore has not shown that these circumstances were erroneous—let alone of the caliber that merits a new trial. So I deny the motions.
. . .
d. Trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to move to suppress the contents of the ABPF binder seized from Fiore’s home.
. . .
The search warrant and affidavit targeting Fiore’s home permitted collection of “all documents relating to the scheme to defraud, … any financial transaction arising from the scheme, … the proceeds of the scheme, … and the disposition of th[ose] proceeds as set forth in the affidavit.” Beyond those broader categories, the warrant also specified that documents and communications related to Hamlet Events, the Fiore for Nevada Campaign, the Future for Nevadans PAC, or the organizations Truth in Politics and Politically Off the Wall should be seized. It also sought “all documents and communications related to goods or services provided by Sheena Siegel.” In the search-warrant affidavit, when laying out the “facts establishing the scheme to defraud,” the affiant asserted that Fiore and Siegel used ABPF to move funds around as part of the campaign-finance-violation scheme.
At base, Fiore’s argument is that, because ABPF was not listed as one of the specific organizations that the FBI should seize documents about, the ABPF binder should not have been seized. But the search warrant was not so limited, nor did it need to be. The affidavit specifically referenced this charity as a conduit for illegally obtained funds, so the category seeking documents related to the disposition of the proceeds of Fiore’s scheme clearly covered documents related to ABPF. Any motion to suppress the contents of the ABPF binder would not have been successful, so Fiore’s trial counsel was thus not ineffective for failing to raise that meritless argument.
