Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
Date: 11-14-2024
Case Style:
United States of America v. Kay Ellison
Case Number: 1:21-CV-16230
Judge: Susan D. Wigenton
Court: United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (Warren County)
Plaintiff's Attorney: United States District Attorney's Office in Camden
Defendant's Attorney:
Description:
Camden, New Jersey criminal defense lawyer represented the Defendant charged with wire and bank fraud.
Ellison, along with co-defendant Judy Tull, founded and managed a now-defunct charter airline called Southern Sky Air
& Tours operating as Myrtle Beach Direct Air & Tours (Direct Air). The Department of Transportation requires charter
operators to deposit passengers’ payments into an approved bank account and keep the funds escrowed until the flight is
completed. 14 C.F.R. Part 380. But Direct Air had cash flow problems. So Ellison siphoned millions of dollars out of the
escrow account through fictitious “dummy” passenger reservations and falsified corporate records. When the scheme
was uncovered, the United States charged both Ellison and Tull with conspiracy to commit wire fraud and bank fraud in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1349, wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1343 and 2, and bank fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1344 and 2.
The jury convicted Ellison and Tull of all counts. Ellison was sentenced to ninety-four months’ imprisonment and ordered to pay $19,663,429.50 in restitution.
Ellison claimed that she was convicted becuase of ineffective assistance of counsel claims under the rubric
created in Strickland v. Washington turn on prejudice, “a reasonable probability” that, but for the attorney’s error, “the result of the proceeding would have been different.” 466 U.S. 668, 694 (1984). Kay Ellison argued her convictions for federal wire fraud, bank fraud, and conspiracy violate the Sixth Amendment because she relied on her attorney’s erroneous advice that if she did not testify, she could not present other evidence. Applying the familiar Strickland standard, we agree with the District Court that there is no reasonable probability that this alleged error changed the jury’s verdict.
Outcome: Affirmed
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments: