Court Reconsidering Miss. Crop Insurance Fraud Case

A two-and-a-half year old federal crop insurance fraud case has resurfaced in Mississippi, with questions arising about if a 1998 cotton crop was insurable.

In 2002, Judge Neal Biggers, dismissed four federal crop insurance fraud charges against Dr. Harold J. Wheeler of Greenwood and his brother Lawyer Wheeler Jr. of Clarksville.
But both men were convicted for falsifying the crops’ planting dates to justify crop disaster payments and are serving sentences in federal prison.

An evidentiary hearing was held before the judge, with testimony from three witnesses and documents produced in an attempt to show that, from the very beginning the crops did not qualify for insurance payments.

The crux of the case revolves around whether the cotton crops were ever eligible for insurance payments and thus, did not qualify for disaster payments. The Wheelers received $250,000 in insurance payments but no disaster aid.

Four crops are in question, one planted by Lawyer Wheeler and three by his brother. Only one crop was irrigated. Witnesses and documents were presented showing that if wheat was planted after cotton, the cotton would be eligible for crop insurance only if it was irrigated.

U.S. Department of Agriculture Farm Service Agency employees testified that non-irrigated cotton crops planted behind wheat would not have been eligible for insurance payments covering the 1998 crop.

Monroe, La. attorney Carey Underwood told the court that Wheeler’s applications for crop insurance were “dead on arrival.”

The 2002 trial revolved around incorrect planting dates on federal forms.

The Wheelers maintain that the planting dates on crop insurance forms were inconsequential. Underwood maintained that if the jury had heard the new testimony there is a “reasonable probability there would have been a different outcome.”

FSA witnesses testified that it wouldn’t have made any difference on the application when the cotton was planted.

John M. Alexander, an assistant U.S. attorney who prosecuted the Wheelers 2002 case, argued that the Wheelers’ ineligibility for crop insurance and disaster assistance was linked to a May 25, 1998, planting deadline, and the jury knew that non-irrigated cotton was not eligible for insurance payments. He also said “Non-insurable crops can qualify for disaster payments. The materiality in this case was the jury’s call.”

Underwood told the court that some of the documents being presented now as exhibits were received from the prosecution after the trial and the jury never saw them.

The Wheelers also claim their lawyers’ failure to present this information amounted to “ineffective legal assistance.”

FSA testimony indicated that the Wheelers’ applications for payments for non-irrigated crops would have sent up “red flags” if he had been reviewing them.

The court is also considering the timing of the Wheelers’ applications for payments in April and May 1999. The applications’ information was transferred from the Risk Management Agency to Farm Service Agency. In the process, there was a mistake in the acreage involving one of Harold Wheeler’s crops that delayed the application, a deadline was missed, which witnesses said should have disqualified the application.

Judge Biggers is expected to rule on the merits of the case this week.

Topics Fraud Agribusiness Mississippi