United States v. Gajo
United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
290 F.3d 922 (2002)
- Written by Craig Conway, LLM
Facts
Bogdan Gajo (defendant) owned a specialty ethnic food store that burned down. An investigation revealed that gasoline was used to intentionally set the fire. One week after the fire, Gajo submitted an insurance claim for the damage. Investigators later learned that Gajo had a relationship with Jay Smith and Edward Baumgart. Smith told federal agents that Baumgart approached him on behalf of Gajo and indicated that Gajo urgently needed a building burned down. Gajo and Baumgart offered Smith $4,000 to set fire to the store but Smith declined. Nearly 10 months after the fire, federal agents directed Smith to telephone Baumgart to talk about the fire. During two recorded conversations, Baumgart instructed Smith not to talk about the fire with law enforcement. Baumgart also talked about a meeting that occurred between the three men and that the investigation had not yet been closed. Gajo’s insurance claim was eventually denied. The United States (plaintiff) charged Gajo with conspiracy to commit arson. At trial, the tape-recorded conversations between Baumgart and Smith were admitted into evidence. Gajo was convicted and he appealed, arguing that the district court improperly admitted the tapes.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Flaum, C.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 806,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
