United States v. Singh: Second Circuit Re-affirmation of the High Bar for Reversal Based on Evidentiary Rulings, Joint Trials, and Supervised-Release Conditions

Introduction

United States v. Singh, Nos. 22-2668 & 23-6275 (2d Cir. Mar. 21, 2025), is a consolidated appeal that arose from a multimillion-dollar bank–fraud scheme involving American Express corporate credit cards. Jasminder Singh, joined by his ex-wife (Rajpreet Kaur) and a former employee (Mandeep Singh), was convicted in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York of bank fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1344) and unlawful monetary transactions (18 U.S.C. § 1957).

On appeal, Singh mounted a multi-front attack on the conviction and sentence, challenging:

• the sufficiency of the evidence on intent to defraud;
• the admission of his co-defendants’ personal credit-card purchases under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b);
• the denial of his motion to sever his trial from that of his ex-wife;
• an alleged aggregation of trial errors (“cumulative-error doctrine”);
• the application of a two-level “leadership” enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(c); and
• a special condition of supervised release requiring probation-office approval of future employment.

The Second Circuit, in a non-precedential summary order, rejected each contention and affirmed the judgment below. Although a summary order lacks precedential effect (2d Cir. Local Rule 32.1.1), it is illuminating because it synthesizes several recurring appellate themes: the deference owed to juries, the wide berth accorded to district-court evidentiary and severance decisions, and the elasticity of supervised-release conditions under plain-error review.

Summary of the Judgment

The Court of Appeals held:

1. Sufficiency of the Evidence – Viewed in the light most favorable to the government (Jackson v. Virginia), a rational jury could find fraudulent intent based on a pattern of bounced payments, impersonations, diversion of funds, and false explanations to American Express.
2. Rule 404(b) Evidence – The district court properly admitted co-defendants’ personal credit-card purchases of iPhones because they were relevant to intent, their probative value outweighed any unfair prejudice, and limiting instructions were given.
3. Denial of Severance – No “miscarriage of justice” resulted from the joint trial; any potential spill-over prejudice was neutralized by curative instructions.
4. Cumulative-Error Doctrine – Because the individual rulings were not erroneous (save for a harmless slip-of-the-tongue double negative), their aggregate could not justify reversal.
5. Sentencing Enhancements – The two-level leadership role applied under § 3B1.1(c) was not clearly erroneous given Singh’s direction of Mandeep’s laundering activity.
6. Special Condition of Supervised Release – Requiring Singh to “cooperate” with probation regarding future employment was reasonably related to deterrence and public protection; any vagueness challenge was unripe.

Analysis

1. Precedents Cited

Although the order is unpublished, it draws on a robust line of Second Circuit and Supreme Court authority:

• Sufficiency Standard – Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979); United States v. Landesman, 17 F.4th 298 (2d Cir. 2021).
• Rule 404(b) – United States v. Lyle, 919 F.3d 716 (2d Cir. 2019); United States v. McPartland, 81 F.4th 101 (2d Cir. 2023).
• Severance / Joint Trials – United States v. Spinelli, 352 F.3d 48 (2d Cir. 2003); United States v. Cacace, 796 F.3d 176 (2d Cir. 2015).
• Cumulative Error – United States v. Fell, 531 F.3d 197 (2d Cir. 2008).
• Witness-Bias Instructions – United States v. Hamilton, 538 F.3d 162 (2d Cir. 2008).
• Role Enhancement – United States v. Szur, 289 F.3d 200 (2d Cir. 2002).
• Supervised-Release Conditions – United States v. Betts, 886 F.3d 198 (2d Cir. 2018); United States v. Eaglin, 913 F.3d 88 (2d Cir. 2019).

Each precedent fortifies the court’s reasoning, illustrating that Singh’s claims collided with well-settled standards that heavily favor affirmance absent clear abuses of discretion or plain error.

2. Legal Reasoning

a. Intent to Defraud
The panel emphasized that circumstantial evidence—impersonations, quick transfers to exhaust cleared credit, and knowingly false explanations—permits a rational fact-finder to infer fraudulent intent. The decision underscores the Second Circuit’s deferential stance toward jury verdicts in fraud prosecutions, especially where sophisticated schemes involve layered transactions.

b. Rule 404(b) Admissibility
Applying the four-part McPartland/Laflam test, the court found the personal-card iPhone purchases probative of intent and not unduly prejudicial. Notably, the relatively small dollar amounts ($25–$50k) compared to the charged $7.3 million fraud minimized prejudicial impact—an important quantitative lens future courts may use.

c. Severance
The court reiterated that joint trials are the default where co-defendants are charged in the same conspiracy, and that prejudice “so severe” as to be a “miscarriage of justice” is required for reversal. Strong limiting instructions and the absence of antagonistic defenses neutralized any spill-over concerns.

d. Cumulative Error
Only “actual errors” are aggregated. Here, the sole conceded error—a double negative in an oral jury instruction—was harmless because the written charge was correct. This highlights the importance of providing written instructions to the jury.

e. Sentencing Issues
• Leadership Enhancement: Directing a subordinate to launder funds and rewarding him sufficed for a §3B1.1(c) role enhancement.
• Employment-Approval Condition: The district court’s rationale was “self-evident” given Singh’s use of business entities to perpetuate fraud. Under plain-error review, breadth or vagueness challenges will ripen only upon concrete future restrictions.

3. Impact

Although non-precedential, the order signals:

• A continued reluctance of the Second Circuit to disturb district-court evidentiary rulings when the trial judge dutifully balances Rule 403 concerns and supplies limiting instructions.
• Reinforcement of the “high bar” standard for severance and cumulative-error claims, heightening defendants’ burden in multi-defendant or conspiracy trials.
• Validation of employment-monitoring conditions in white-collar cases, foreshadowing wider use of probation oversight to mitigate recidivism risk in fraud-based offenses.
• Affirmation that harmless linguistic slips in jury instructions—especially cured by correct written charges—rarely warrant new trials.
• Clarification that relatively modest leadership enhancements (two levels) are sustainable where minimal but clear supervisory conduct exists.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• Rule 404(b) Evidence: A rule that typically bars “bad-acts” evidence to show a defendant’s propensity but allows it for specific purposes (e.g., proving intent or absence of mistake). The court must ensure its probative value exceeds its prejudicial effect.
• Severance: Splitting defendants into separate trials. Denied if the joint trial promotes efficiency and does not prejudice a defendant’s right to a fair trial.
• Cumulative Error Doctrine: Even if individual errors are harmless, their combined effect may warrant reversal if they collectively undermine trial fairness. Only genuine errors—not merely alleged ones—are aggregated.
• Leadership Enhancement (§3B1.1): Adds offense levels at sentencing when the defendant organizes or supervises at least one other participant. Requires only minimal evidence of direction or control for a two-level bump.
• Plain Error Review: When a defendant failed to object contemporaneously, appellate courts remedy only errors that are (1) clear or obvious, (2) affect substantial rights, and (3) seriously impair the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.

Conclusion

United States v. Singh is a textbook example of the Second Circuit’s deference to district-court discretion and jury determinations in complex fraud cases. While not precedential, the decision consolidates and re-articulates principles that govern:

1. the sufficiency threshold for intent-based white-collar crimes;
2. the admissibility of related-act evidence under Rule 404(b);
3. the stringent standard for severance and cumulative-error relief; and
4. the breadth of sentencing-phase managerial enhancements and supervised-release conditions.

Practitioners should view Singh as a cautionary tale: appellate courts will rarely disturb convictions absent clear abuses. Trial counsel must therefore build robust records and objections in real time, lest arguments be relegated to plain-error review.