We have no hesitation in concluding that the Government’s theory rested on a legally cognizable theory of conspiracy to defraud by wire and computer.” —Whittemore, Judge 

Facts: Marcus Barrington, Christopher Jacquette, and Lawrence Secrease were undergraduate students at Florida A&M University (FAMU). They concocted a scheme to access FAMU’s Internet-based grading system. They went to the Registrar’s Office and surreptitiously installed keylogger software on FAMU’s computers. The keylogger software recorded the keystrokes made by Registrar employees as they signed into their computers, capturing their usernames and passwords. That data was automatically transmitted to various email accounts, including Barrington’s personal email address. Using the user-names and passwords, Barrington and the others, using their own computers and FAMU’s computers, accessed FAMU’s grading system and changed course grades for themselves and other students. Barrington received approximately 30–35 grade changes, Jacquette approximately 43, and Secrease approximately 36. Ultimately, the group made in excess of 650 unauthorized grade changes for at least 90 students, including fraternity brothers. Eventually a professor uncovered the scheme and the FAMU police and the FBI were notified. Barrington, Jacquette, and Secrease were indicted and charged with the federal crimes of conspiring to commit wire fraud using a protected computer, fraud using a protected computer, and identity theft. Jacquette and Secrease entered into a plea agreement and were each sentenced to 22 months in prison. Barrington went to trial and denied involvement in the scheme. Barrington was convicted on all counts and was sentenced to seven years in prison. Barrington appealed his conviction and sentence. 

Issue: Was Barrington guilty of the crimes charged and was the prison sentence appropriate? 

Language of the Court: There was an adequate basis for the jury to find that Barrington actually committed the extrinsic acts. Jacquette’s uncorroborated testimony was sufficient, since he had personal knowledge of Barrington’s conduct. We have no hesitation in concluding that the Government’s theory rested on a legally cognizable theory of conspiracy to defraud by wire and computer. The evidence was sufficient to support Barrington’s convictions for aggravated identity theft. Barrington’s lack of remorse, coupled with his false trial testimony, obstructive conduct during the investigation, and what the district court described as his “arrogance and contempt for the law,” certainly justified the sentence imposed. 

Decision: The U.S. court of appeals affirmed Barrington’s conviction and prison sentence.

Ethics Questions: Should Barrington have entered into a plea deal before trial? Did Jacquette act ethically by being a witness against Barrington? Was the seven-year prison sentence warranted?