botti ruling
TRANSCRIPT
-
7/29/2019 Botti Ruling
1/36
- 1-
10- 3891- crUni t ed St at es v. Bot t i
UNI TED STATES COURT OF APPEALS12
FOR THE SECOND CI RCUI T3
____________________________________45
August Term, 201167
Ar gued: May 2, 2012 Deci ded: March 28, 201389
Docket No. 10- 3891- cr10____________________________________11
12
UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA,1314
Appel l ee,1516
v. 1718
J AMES BOTTI 1920
Def endant - Appel l ant .21___________________________________22
23
Bef or e: SACK and RAGGI , Ci r cui t J udges, and KOELTL, Di st r i ct24J udge. *25
26Def endant J ames Bot t i was convi ct ed of honest servi ces27
mai l f r aud af t er a j ur y t r i al i n t he Di st r i ct of Connecti cut28
( Char l es S. Hai ght , J r . , J udge) . See 18 U. S. C. 1341 and29
1346. I n t hi s appeal f r omt he j udgment ent ered on Sept ember30
20, 2010, Bot t i ar gues t hat t he Di st r i ct Cour t commi t t ed31
r ever si bl e er r or when i t used a j ur y i nst r uct i on on honest32
ser vi ces mai l f r aud t hat al l owed t he j ur y t o f i nd Bot t i gui l t y33
* The Honor abl e J ohn G. Koel t l , of t he Uni t ed St at es Di st r i ctCour t f or t he Sout her n Di st r i ct of New Yor k, si t t i ng bydesi gnat i on.
-
7/29/2019 Botti Ruling
2/36
- 2-
of t hat cr i me wi t hout f i ndi ng a br i ber y or ki ckback scheme, i n1
cont r avent i on of t he Supr eme Cour t s deci si on i n Ski l l i ng v.2
Uni t ed St at es, 130 S. Ct . 2896 ( 2010) . Whi l e t he j ur y3
i nst r uct i on was er r or , i t does not mer i t r ever sal because4
br i ber y was t he onl y theor y of honest servi ces mai l f r aud5
avai l abl e t o t he j ur y based on t he ar gument s and evi dence at6
t r i al . Ther ef or e, we af f i r m t he j udgment of t he Di st r i ct7
Cour t .8
Af f i r med.9
______________10
GEORGE W. GANI M, J R. , The Gani m Law Fi r m, P. C. , f or Def endant -11Appel l ant J ames Bot t i .12
13RI CHARD J . SCHECHTER AND RAHUL KALE, Assi st ant Uni t ed St at es14At t or neys, ( Sandr a S. Gl over on t he br i ef ) f or Mi chael J .15Gust af son, Act i ng Uni t ed St at es At t or ney f or t he Di st r i ct of16Connect i cut , f or Appel l ee Uni t ed St at es of Amer i ca.17______________18
J ohn G. Koel t l , Di st r i ct J udge:1920
Def endant J ames Bot t i was convi ct ed of honest servi ces21
mai l f r aud af t er a j ur y t r i al i n t he Di st r i ct of Connecti cut22
( Char l es S. Hai ght , J r . , J udge) . See 18 U. S. C. 1341 and23
1346. I n t hi s appeal f r omt he j udgment ent ered on Sept ember24
20, 2010, Bot t i ar gues t hat t he Di st r i ct Cour t commi t t ed25
r ever si bl e er r or when i t used a j ur y i nst r uct i on on honest26
ser vi ces mai l f r aud t hat al l owed t he j ur y t o f i nd Bot t i gui l t y27
of t hat cr i me wi t hout f i ndi ng a br i ber y or ki ckback scheme, i n28
-
7/29/2019 Botti Ruling
3/36
- 3-
cont r avent i on of t he Supr eme Cour t s deci si on i n Ski l l i ng v.1
Uni t ed St at es, 130 S. Ct . 2896 ( 2010) . Whi l e t he j ur y2
i nst r uct i on was er r or , i t does not mer i t r ever sal because3
br i ber y was t he onl y theor y of honest servi ces mai l f r aud4
avai l abl e t o t he j ur y based on t he ar gument s and evi dence at5
t r i al .6
Ther ef or e, we AFFI RM t he j udgment of t he Di st r i ct Cour t .7
BACKGROUND8
On November 6, 2008, a gr and j ur y i n t he Di st r i ct of9
Connect i cut r et ur ned a seven- count i ndi ct ment agai nst Bot t i10
char gi ng ( i ) one count of conspi r acy i n vi ol at i on of 18 U. S. C.11
371 t o commi t mai l f r aud i n vi ol at i on of 18 U. S. C. 134112
and 1346; ( i i ) one count of br i ber y of a publ i c of f i ci al i n13
vi ol at i on of 18 U. S. C. 666( a) ( 2) ; ( i i i ) one count of14
schemi ng t o obt ai n money and pr oper t y and t o def r aud t he15
ci t i zens of Shel t on, Connect i cut of t he r i ght t o honest16
ser vi ces by mai l f r aud i n vi ol at i on of 18 U. S. C. 1341 and17
1346; ( i v) one count of conspi r acy i n vi ol at i on of 18 U. S. C.18
371 t o st r uct ur e t r ansact i ons wi t h domest i c f i nanci al19
i nst i t ut i ons cont r ar y t o 31 U. S. C. 5324( a) ( 3) and 5324( d) ;20
( v) one subst ant i ve count of such st r uct ur i ng i n vi ol at i on of21
31 U. S. C. 5324( a) ( 3) and 5324( d) ; and ( vi ) and ( vi i ) t wo22
count s of maki ng f al se st at ement s t o t he I nt er nal Revenue23
Ser vi ce i n vi ol at i on of 18 U. S. C. 1001( a) ( 2) . The24
-
7/29/2019 Botti Ruling
4/36
- 4-
i ndi ct ment al so i ncl uded a f or f ei t ur e al l egat i on i n connect i on1
wi t h t he st r uct ur i ng count s.2
Pr i or t o t r i al , t he Di st r i ct Cour t gr ant ed t he3
def endant s mot i on t o sever t he i ndi ct ment and ordered t hat4
t he conspi r acy t o commi t mai l f r aud, br i ber y, and mai l f r aud5
count sCount s One, Two, and Thr eebe t r i ed separ atel y f r om t he6
conspi r acy t o st r uct ur e, st r uct ur i ng, and f al se st at ement7
count sCount s Four t hr ough Seven. Separate r edact ed8
i ndi ct ment s wer e pr epar ed f or each t r i al .9
On November 10, 2009, a j ur y f ound Bot t i gui l t y of10
conspi r acy t o st r uct ur e and st r uct ur i ng. The j ur y f ound hi m11
not gui l t y of t he t wo f al se st at ement count s. 12
On Apr i l 1, 2010, a separ at e j ur y f ound Bot t i gui l t y of13
honest servi ces mai l f r aud, as char ged i n Count Thr ee of t he14
or i gi nal and r edact ed i ndi ct ment s. On t he ver di ct sheet , t he15
j ury answer ed yes t o t he st at ement : J ames Bot t i engaged i n16
a scheme or ar t i f i ce t o depr i ve t he ci t i zens of Shel t on of t he17
i nt angi bl e r i ght of honest ser vi ces of t hei r publ i c of f i ci al18
or of f i ci al s, by ut i l i zi ng or causi ng t he Uni t ed St at es mai l s19
t o be used f or t he pur pose of execut i ng that scheme or20
ar t i f i ce. The j ur y was unabl e t o agr ee on whet her an obj ect21
of t he mai l f r aud scheme was al so t o obt ai n money or pr opert y22
by means of mat er i al l y f al se or f r audul ent pr et enses,23
r epr esent at i ons or pr omi ses . . . . The j ur y was al so unabl e24
-
7/29/2019 Botti Ruling
5/36
- 5-
t o r each a ver di ct on t he conspi r acy count and t he br i bery1
count , and t he Di st r i ct Cour t decl ar ed a mi st r i al on t hose2
count s and on the money and pr oper t y pr ong of t he mai l f r aud3
count . 4
On Sept ember 17, 2012, Bot t i was sent enced pr i nci pal l y t o5
a 72- mont h t erm of i mpr i sonment on t he honest ser vi ces mai l6
f r aud count and t o concur r ent sentences of 60 mont hs on t he7
conspi r acy t o st r uct ur e and st r uct ur i ng convi ct i ons, f ol l owed8
by concur r ent t hr ee- year t er ms of super vi sed r el ease.9
J udgment was ent er ed on September 20, 2010.10
On t hi s appeal f r om t he j udgment of convi ct i on, Bot t i11
chal l enges onl y hi s convi ct i on on t he honest servi ces mai l12
f r aud count and onl y on t he basi s of t he Di st r i ct Cour t s13
al l egedl y er r oneous j ur y i nst r uct i on.14
The mai l f r aud conspi r acy, br i ber y, and subst ant i ve mai l15
f r aud count s ar ose f r om Bot t i s al l eged pr ovi si on of cor r upt16
payment s and ot her benef i t s t o publ i c of f i ci al s i n Shel t on,17
Connect i cut where he worked as a r eal est ate devel oper . The18
br i ber y count al l eged t hat i n J une 2006, Bot t i pr ovi ded over19
$5, 000 i n t hi ngs of val ue t o Publ i c Of f i ci al #1, i dent i f i ed20
at t r i al as t he Mayor of Shel t on, wi t h t he i nt ent t o i nf l uence21
t hat of f i ci al t o use hi s posi t i on and aut hor i t y t o assi st22
Bot t i i n obt ai ni ng appr oval f r om Shel t on s Pl anni ng and Zoni ng23
Commi ss i on f or a commerci al devel opment pr oj ect at 82824
-
7/29/2019 Botti Ruling
6/36
- 6-
Br i dgepor t Avenue i n Shel t on ( t he 828 Proj ect ) . The mai l1
f r aud count al l eged: ( i ) a scheme t o obt ai n money and pr opert y2
and ( i i ) a scheme t o depr i ve t he ci t i zens of Shel t on of t he3
i nt angi bl e r i ght of honest ser vi ces of t hei r publ i c of f i ci al s.4
The al l eged f r audul ent scheme t o obt ai n money and proper t y5
r el i ed on al l egat i ons t hat Bot t i obt ai ned appr oval f or $6. 56
mi l l i on i n f i nanci ng f or t he 828 Pr oj ect f r om a f i nanci al7
i nst i t ut i on, l at er shown t o be NewAl l i ance Bank. That8
f i nanci ng depended on appr oval of t he 828 Proj ect by the9
Pl anni ng and Zoni ng Commi ss i on, whi ch Bot t i al l egedl y had10
obt ai ned f r audul ent l y by, among ot her means, di r ect i ng11
empl oyees and per sons af f i l i at ed wi t h hi s busi ness t o at t end a12
publ i c hear i ng bef or e the Commi ssi on to speak i n f avor of13
Bot t i s appl i cat i on wi t hout di scl osi ng t hei r af f i l i at i ons wi t h14
Bot t i . I n suppor t of t he scheme t o def r aud t he ci t i zens of15
Shel t on of t he honest ser vi ces of t hei r publ i c of f i ci al s, t he16
i ndi ct ment al l eged a scheme begi nni ng i n or about 2002 i n17
whi ch Bot t i pr ovi ded br i bes t o t he Mayor of Shel t on and t o18
ot her Shel t on publ i c of f i ci al s t o secur e appr oval f or Bot t i s19
commerci al devel opment pr oj ect s. 20
Bef or e t r i al , whi l e Ski l l i ng v. Uni t ed St at es, 130 S. Ct .21
2896, was pendi ng bef ore t he Supr eme Cour t , Bot t i moved t o22
di smi ss t he mai l f r aud count t o t he extent t hat i t depended on23
t he depr i vat i on of t he i nt angi bl e r i ght t o honest ser vi ces24
-
7/29/2019 Botti Ruling
7/36
- 7-
under 18 U. S. C. 1346. That st at ut e pr ovi des: For t he1
pur poses of t hi s chapt er , t he t er m scheme or ar t i f i ce t o2
def r aud i ncl udes a scheme or ar t i f i ce t o depr i ve anot her of3
t he i nt angi bl e r i ght of honest ser vi ces. 18 U. S. C. 1346.4
Bot t i ar gued t hat t he st at ut e was unconst i t ut i onal l y vague.5
I n opposi t i on to t he mot i on, t he Gover nment ar gued that Bot t i6
coul d qui t e easi l y under st and t hat hi s conduct i n br i bi ng and7
r ewar di ng publ i c of f i ci al s wi t h i nt ent t hat t hey use t hei r8
of f i ce t o benef i t hi m was pr ohi bi t ed conduct pr oscr i bed by9
sect i on 1346, and t hat f eder al cour t s had uni f or ml y10
const r ued t he mai l f r aud st at ut e t o cover t he si t uat i on wher e11
publ i c of f i ci al s r ecei ved br i bes and ki ckbacks t her eby12
depr i vi ng t he ci t i zenr y of t hei r i nt angi bl e r i ght s t o good13
and honest gover nment . Gov t Resp. t o Def . s Mot . t o Di smi ss14
at 5. The Di st r i ct Cour t deni ed Bot t i s mot i on. 15
At t r i al , t he Gover nment s t heor y of honest servi ces mai l16
f r aud was t hat Bot t i made cor r upt payment s and pr ovi ded other17
cor r upt benef i t s t o Shel t on publ i c of f i ci al s wi t h t he i nt ent18
t o i nf l uence t hose of f i ci al s and t her eby secur e appr oval f or19
hi s r eal est at e devel opment pr oj ect s. I n i t s openi ng20
st at ement , t he Gover nment expl ai ned i t s t heor y of t he case as21
f ol l ows: At t he end of t hi s t r i al , you wi l l be asked t o22
deci de i f J ames Bot t i engaged i n act s of cor r upt i on by br i bi ng23
publ i c of f i ci al s wi t h t he i nt ent t o i nf l uence t hem so t hat24
-
7/29/2019 Botti Ruling
8/36
- 8-
t hey woul d t hi nk of J ames Bot t i s i nt er est , r at her t han t he1
publ i c i nt er est. 2
The Government s honest ser vi ces mai l f r aud t heor y3
al l eged a pr ol onged ef f or t by Bot t i t o cor r upt Shel t on publ i c4
of f i ci al s. The Gover nment el i ci t ed t est i mony at t r i al5
r egardi ng a hi st ory of payment s made and benef i t s gi ven by6
Bot t i t o Shel t on s Mayor wi t h t he i nt ent t o i nf l uence t he7
Mayor i n t he exer ci se of hi s of f i ci al dut i es. Thi s i ncl uded8
t est i mony that : Bot t i had pai d f or a Fl or i da vacat i on f or t he9
Mayor and hi s f ami l y; Bot t i had made payment s t o cover t he10
cost s of r epai r s on t he Mayor s house; Bot t i had s i gni f i cant l y11
over pai d t he Mayor f or a Chr i st mas par t y t hat Bot t i hel d at a12
r est aur ant owned by t he Mayor ; and Bot t i had pr ovi ded other13
ser vi ces t o the Mayor wi t hout char ge i ncl udi ng use of Bot t i s14
backhoe, r emovi ng f ur ni t ur e f r om t he Mayor s house, st or i ng15
t he Mayor s car i n Bot t i s mai nt enance gar age, as wel l as16
hi r i ng t he Mayor s br ot her as a f avor t o t he Mayor . 17
The Government di d not l i mi t i t s t heor y of honest18
ser vi ces mai l f r aud t o br i bery of t he Mayor . The Government19
al so ar gued t hat Bot t i pr ovi ded cor r upt payment s and benef i t s20
t o Shel t on Pl anni ng and Zoni ng Commi ssi on of f i ci al s t o obt ai n21
appr oval f or t he 828 Pr oj ect . At t r i al , t he Gover nment22
pr esent ed evi dence t hat Bot t i had submi t t ed pl ans f or t he 82823
Proj ect t o t he Shel t on Pl anni ng and Zoni ng Commi ss i on. The24
-
7/29/2019 Botti Ruling
9/36
- 9-
Gover nment of f er ed t est i mony that , af t er submi t t i ng hi s pl ans,1
Bot t i became aware t hat he l acked t he votes t o obt ai n appr oval2
f or t he 828 Proj ect f r om t he Pl anni ng and Zoni ng Commi ss i on,3
whi ch l ed hi m t o pr ovi de Shel t on s Mayor wi t h a $50, 000 br i be4
i n exchange f or whi ch the Mayor woul d use hi s i nf l uence wi t h5
t he Pl anni ng and Zoni ng Commi ss i on t o secur e appr oval f or t he6
828 Pr oj ect . 1 Ther e was al so evi dence t hat , af t er r ecei vi ng7
$50, 000 f r omBot t i , t he Mayor had ur ged members of t he8
Pl anni ng and Zoni ng Commi ss i on t o appr ove the 828 Proj ect .9
The Government al so of f er ed t est i mony t hat Bot t i had10
pr ovi ded benef i t s di r ect l y t o member s of t he Pl anni ng and11
Zoni ng Commi ss i on who had vot ed i n f avor of t he 828 Proj ect .12
Bot t i pr ovi ded $150 gi f t cer t i f i cat es t o t wo member s of t he13
Pl anni ng and Zoni ng Commi ss i on who vot ed i n f avor of t he 82814
Proj ect and to anot her commi ssi oner who pr ovi ded assi st ance i n15
obt ai ni ng appr oval of t he 828 Pr oj ect . Bot t i al so pai d about16
$2000 f or a Chr i st mas par t y at a rest aur ant owned by one of17
t he member s of t he Pl anni ng and Zoni ng Commi ssi on who vot ed i n18
f avor of t he 828 Pr oj ect . 19
Dur i ng i t s summat i on, t he Government argued t hat t here20
wer e t wo pr ongs of t he mai l f r aud al l eged i n t he i ndi ct ment :21
1 Thi s i nci dent al so ser ved as evi dence i n suppor t of t hebr i ber y count on whi ch t he j ur y ul t i mat el y coul d not r each aver di ct.
-
7/29/2019 Botti Ruling
10/36
- 10-
The f i r st pr ong, he i nt ended t o depr i ve t he ci t i zens of1
Shel t on of t he honest ser vi ces of t hei r publ i c of f i ci al s. He2
al so engaged i n a mai l f r aud t o depr i ve NewAl l i ance Bank of3
mi l l i ons of dol l ar s i n l oan pr oceeds. The Gover nment4
summar i zed f or t he j ur y t he evi dence of t he hi st or y of br i bes5
t hat Bot t i had pai d t o t he Mayor of Shel t on and t o ot her6
Shel t on of f i ci al s i n exchange f or f avor abl e t r eat ment . Based7
on t hi s pat t ern of behavi or , t he Government argued, J ames8
Bot t i t hi nks t hi s i s how you do busi ness i n Shel t on; you9
gr ease t he wheel . . . . J ames Bot t i t hi nks you have t o pay t o10
get t hi ngs done. 11
Wi t h r espect t o t he mai l f r aud scheme to obt ai n money and12
pr opert y f r omNewAl l i ance Bank, t he Government f ocused on t he13
mi sr epr esent at i ons t hat al l egedl y l ed t he Pl anni ng and Zoni ng14
Commi ss i on t o appr ove t he 828 Proj ect and t hereby sat i sf y a15
condi t i on f or f i nanci ng appr oval f r om t he bank. The16
Government argued, Bot t i s scheme t o def r aud was al so an17
ef f or t t o make money f or hi msel f . He want ed t he mi l l i ons of18
dol l ar s NewAl l i ance Bank had wai t i ng f or hi m, i f he coul d j ust19
get [ Pl anni ng and Zoni ng Commi ss i on] appr oval . As evi dence20
of t he mat er i al l y f al se r epr esent at i ons connect ed wi t h t hi s21
mai l f r aud al l egat i on, t he Gover nment poi nt ed t o t est i mony22
t hat Bot t i had sent Gr eg Fracassi ni and Dan Wi t ki ns t o t est i f y23
i n f avor of t he 828 Pr oj ect bef or e the Pl anni ng and Zoni ng24
-
7/29/2019 Botti Ruling
11/36
- 11-
Commi ssi on i n J une 2006 and i nst r uct ed t hem t o l i e about1
t hei r associ at i on wi t h hi m. The Gover nment ar gued t hat t hi s2
t est i mony was hi ghl y i nf l uent i al i n secur i ng t he Pl anni ng and3
Zoni ng Commi ss i on s appr oval of t he 828 Proj ect , whi ch was a4
condi t i on pr ecedent t o Bot t i s secur i ng t he mul t i - mi l l i on5
dol l ar f i nanci ng f r om NewAl l i ance Bank. 6
The Government s proposed i nst r uct i on on t he honest7
ser vi ces mai l f r aud count speci f i ed t hat i t s sol e t heor y of8
honest ser vi ces f r aud was br i bery. The Government s pr oposed9
j ury i nst r uct i on provi ded:10
A gover nment of f i ci al who uses hi s or her publ i c11posi t i on f or sel f - enr i chment br eaches t he dut y of12honest servi ce owed t o t he publ i c and the13gover nment . So, f or i nst ance, a publ i c of f i ci al14who accept s a br i be or cor r upt payment br eaches15t he dut y of honest , f ai t hf ul , and di si nt er est ed16servi ce. Whi l e out war dl y appear i ng t o be17exer ci si ng i ndependent j udgment i n hi s or her18
of f i ci al wor k, t he publ i c of f i ci al i nstead has19been pai d pr i vat el y f or hi s or her publ i c20conduct . Thus, t he publ i c i s not r ecei vi ng t he21publ i c of f i ci al s honest and f ai t hf ul ser vi ce t o22whi ch i t i s ent i t l ed.23
24The Government al l eges t hat def endant J AMES25
BOTTI engaged i n a scheme t o def r aud t he ci t i zens26of Shel t on, Connect i cut of t he i nt angi bl e r i ght27t o t he honest ser vi ces of i t s publ i c of f i ci al s by28pr ovi di ng benef i t s t o such of f i ci al s wi t h i nt ent29
t o i nf l uence such of f i ci al s. Wher e t her e i s a30 st r eam of benef i t s ar r anged by t he payor t o f avor31a publ i c of f i ci al , t he Gover nment need not32demonst r at e t hat any speci f i c benef i t was33r ecei ved by the publ i c of f i ci al i n exchange f or a34speci f i c of f i ci al act . I n ot her wor ds, when35payment s ar e made by a payor t o a publ i c of f i ci al36wi t h t he i nt ent t o r et ai n t hat of f i ci al s37
-
7/29/2019 Botti Ruling
12/36
- 12-
ser vi ces on an as needed basi s so t hat when t he1oppor t uni t y pr esent s i t sel f t hat publ i c of f i ci al2wi l l t ake speci f i c of f i ci al acti on on t he payor s3behal f , t hat const i t ut es a br each of t he publ i c4of f i ci al s dut y of honest ser vi ces. Pr evi ousl y,5
i n Request #34, I def i ned f or you t he def i ni t i on6 of a br i be and you may ref er t o t hat def i ni t i on7i n consi der i ng whether def endant J AMES BOTTI8engaged i n a scheme to def r aud t he publ i c of i t s9i nt angi bl e r i ght t o t he honest ser vi ces of i t s10publ i c of f i ci al s .11
12Request #34, t he request r el at i ng t o the 666 br i ber y13
char ge, def i ned a br i be as a cor r upt payment t hat a14
per son pr ovi des t o a publ i c of f i ci al wi t h t he i nt ent t o15
i nf l uence t he of f i ci al i n t he per f or mance of hi s or her16
publ i c dut i es. 17
At t he char ge conf er ence, Bot t i s counsel st at ed t hat he18
was not comf or t abl e wi t h t he Gover nment s pr oposed i nst r uct i on19
on honest ser vi ces f r aud because i t seems t o be so skewed t o20
t he al l egat i ons here. . . . I t i s not , I don t t hi nk, a21
gener i c def i ni t i on of t hef t of honest ser vi ces. I t i s a22
descri pt i on of t hef t of honest ser vi ce as al l eged i n t hi s23
case. Bot t i s at t or ney ul t i mat el y di d not obj ect t o t he24
i nst r uct i on, di d not of f er al t er nat i ve wor di ng when gi ven t he25
oppor t uni t y, and st at ed t hat he woul d def er t o t he Di st r i ct26
Cour t r egar di ng t he j ur y i nst r uct i on. 27
The Di st r i ct Cour t began i t s char ge t o t he j ury by28
handi ng out copi es of t he redact ed i ndi ct ment and r eadi ng most29
of i t t o t he j ur y. The Di st r i ct Cour t i nst r ucted t he j ur y on30
-
7/29/2019 Botti Ruling
13/36
- 13-
t he br i bery charge as t he Government had r equest ed, and read1
t he r el evant st at ut e t o t he j ur y. The Di st r i ct Cour t def i ned2
t he el ement s of t he of f ense of br i ber y as f ol l ows:3
Fi r st , at t he t i me al l eged i n t he i ndi ct ment4. . . Publ i c Of f i ci al 1, was an agent of t he ci t y of5Shel t on, Connect i cut ; second, t hat t he Ci t y of6Shel t on r ecei ved f eder al benef i t s i n excess of7$10, 000 i n a one- year per i od; t hi r d, t hat def endant8gave or agr eed t o gi ve or of f er ed somet hi ng of val ue9t o [ Publ i c Of f i ci al 1] ; f our t h, t hat t he def endant10act ed cor r upt l y wi t h t he i nt ent t o i nf l uence or11r ewar d [ Publ i c Of f i ci al 1] wi t h r espect t o a12t r ansacti on of t he Ci t y of Shel t on; f i f t h, t hat t he13val ue of t he t r ansact i on t o whi ch t he payment14r el at ed was at l east $5, 000.15
16Tur ni ng t o t he honest ser vi ces mai l f r aud count , t he17
Di st r i ct Cour t r ead t he al l egat i ons i n t he i ndi ct ment and t he18
r el evant st at ut or y pr ovi si ons t o t he j ur y. The Di st r i ct Cour t19
t hen expl ai ned t he el ement s:20
Fi r st , t hat t he def endant devi sed a scheme or21
ar t i f i ce. Ther e ar e t wo t ypes of schemes char ged i n22Count Thr ee of t he i ndi ct ment . One i s a scheme or23ar t i f i ce f or obt ai ni ng money or pr oper t y by24mat er i al l y f al se and f r audul ent pr et enses,25r epr esent at i ons or pr omi ses, as al l eged i n t he26i ndi ct ment .27
28The ot her i s a scheme or ar t i f i ce t o depr i ve t he29ci t i zens of Shel t on of t he i nt angi bl e r i ght of t he30honest ser vi ces of t hei r publ i c of f i ci al s as al l eged31i n t he i ndi ct ment .32
33 Second el ement : That t he def endant knowi ngl y and34wi l l f ul l y par t i ci pat ed i n t he scheme or ar t i f i ce,35wi t h knowl edge of i t s f r audul ent nat ur e and wi t h36speci f i c i nt ent .37
38
-
7/29/2019 Botti Ruling
14/36
- 14-
Thi r d: That i n execut i on of t hat scheme or ar t i f i ce,1t he Def endant used or caused the use of t he mai l s,2as speci f i ed i n t he i ndi ct ment .3
4The Di st r i ct Cour t provi ded a mor e t r uncat ed expl anat i on of5
honest ser vi ces t han t he char ge sought by t he Government . The6
Di st r i ct Cour t i nst r ucted t he j ur y as f ol l ows:7
A publ i c of f i ci al or l ocal gover nment empl oyee8owes a dut y of honest , f ai t hf ul , and9di si nt er est ed ser vi ce t o t he publ i c and t o t he10government t hat he or she ser ves. The publ i c11r el i es on of f i ci al s of t he gover nment t o act f or12t he publ i c i nt er est not f or t hei r own enr i chment .13A gover nment of f i ci al who uses hi s or her publ i c14posi t i on f or sel f - enr i chment br eaches t he dut y of15honest servi ce owed t o the publ i c and t o t he16Gover nment .17
18So, f or i nst ance, a publ i c of f i ci al who accept s a19br i be or cor r upt payment [ br eaches] t he dut y of20honest , f ai t hf ul and di si nt er est ed ser vi ce, whi l e21out war dl y appear i ng to be exer ci si ng22i ndependen[ ce] i n hi s or her of f i ci al wor k, t he23publ i c of f i ci al i nst ead has been pai d pr i vat el y24f or hi s or her publ i c conduct . Thus, t he publ i c25
i s not r ecei vi ng t he publ i c of f i ci al s honest and26f ai t hf ul ser vi ce t o whi ch i t i s ent i t l ed.27
28Def ense counsel di d not obj ect t o t he i nst r uct i on.29
The j ury r et urned a gui l t y ver di ct on t he honest ser vi ces30
mai l f r aud count . The j ur y was unabl e t o r each a ver di ct on31
t he mai l f r aud count based on depr i vat i on of money or32
pr oper t y. 33
Af t er t r i al , Bot t i moved f or a j udgment of acqui t t al34
pur suant t o Federal Rul e of Cr i mi nal Procedur e 29 and f or a35
new t r i al pur suant t o Feder al Rul e of Cr i mi nal Pr ocedur e 33,36
-
7/29/2019 Botti Ruling
15/36
- 15-
ar gui ng t hat t he evi dence of honest servi ces mai l f r aud was1
i nsuf f i ci ent t o suppor t a convi ct i on. I n hi s mot i on f or a2
j udgment of acqui t t al , Bot t i ar gued t hat none of t he t est i mony3
r el at i ng t o br i ber y of t he Mayor of Shel t on coul d be4
consi der ed i n suppor t of hi s convi ct i on because the j ur y had5
not vot ed t o convi ct Bot t i of br i ber y. Bot t i ar gued t hat t he6
r emai ni ng evi dence of br i bes of Pl anni ng and Zoni ng Commi ss i on7
of f i ci al s was i nsuf f i ci ent t o suppor t a convi ct i on of honest8
ser vi ces f r aud. 9
Af t er t he Supr eme Cour t i ssued i t s opi ni on i n Ski l l i ng,10
130 S. Ct . 2896, Bot t i submi t t ed a suppl ement al memorandum i n11
suppor t of hi s mot i on f or a j udgment of acqui t t al , whi ch12
ar gued t hat t he j ur y char ge and ver di ct f or m l ef t open t he13
possi bi l i t y t hat t he j ur y coul d have convi ct ed Bot t i of honest14
servi ces mai l f r aud on a non- br i ber y t heor y i n cont r avent i on15
of t he Supr eme Cour t s hol di ng i n Ski l l i ng. Bot t i cl ai med16
t hat t he i ndi ct ment was def ect i ve i nsof ar as i t di d not17
speci f i cal l y al l ege t hat t he scheme used t o commi t honest18
ser vi ces f r aud was br i ber y; i nst ead, i t i ndi cat [ ed] a19
gener al t heor y of honest servi ces mai l f r aud, namel y, t hat20
def endant cont r i ved a scheme or art i f i ce to def r aud by means21
of f r audul ent pr et enses or mi sr epr esent at i ons. Bot t i ar gued22
t hat t he Government s proposed i nst r uct i onwi t h whi ch def ense23
counsel had expr essed di scomf ort at t he charge conf erence24
-
7/29/2019 Botti Ruling
16/36
- 16-
woul d have compl i ed wi t h Ski l l i ng because i t speci f i ed t hat1
t he Government s t heor y of honest ser vi ces mai l f r aud was2
br i ber y. However , he cl ai med t hat t he i nst r uct i on act ual l y3
gi ven t o t he j ur y di d not compl y wi t h Ski l l i ng because i t4
conf l at ed gener al sel f - enr i chment wi t h act ual br i ber y. 5
Bot t i ar gued t hat t he j ur y char ge was def ect i ve because i t6
di d not l i mi t sel f - enr i chment t o br i ber y as r equi r ed by7
Ski l l i ng, but r at her r ef er r ed t o br i ber y as i l l ustr at i ve. 8
The Di st r i ct Cour t deni ed Bot t i s mot i ons f or a j udgment9
of acqui t t al and f or a new t r i al . The Di st r i ct Cour t f ound10
t hat t here was ampl e evi dence t hat Bot t i ext ended numerous11
f avor s t o sever al Shel t on publ i c ser vant s f or t he pur pose of12
obt ai ni ng i n r et ur n f avor abl e act i on on hi s devel opment13
appl i cat i ons, par t i cul ar l y the 828 Pr oj ect , i n der ogat i on of14
t he Shel t on ci t i zenr y s r i ght t o t hei r publ i c ser vant s honest15
ser vi ces. The Di st r i ct Cour t r ej ect ed Bot t i s ar gument t hat16
t he j ur y s f ai l ur e t o r et ur n a ver di ct on t he br i ber y char ge17
necessar i l y meant t hat t he evi dence of honest servi ces f r aud18
was i nsuf f i ci ent t o suppor t a gui l t y ver di ct . The Di st r i ct19
Cour t f i r st not ed t hat i n Yeager v. Uni t ed St at es, 557 U. S.20
110 ( 2009) , t he Supr eme Cour t had i nst r uct ed cour t s not t o21
at t r i but e any meani ng t o t he f ai l ur e t o r et ur n a ver di ct .22
Fur t her mor e, t he Di st r i ct Cour t f ound t hat t he evi dence23
-
7/29/2019 Botti Ruling
17/36
- 17-
pr oduced at t r i al was suf f i ci ent t o suppor t Bot t i s convi ct i on1
f or honest ser vi ces mai l f r aud. 2
Wi t h r espect t o Bot t i s obj ect i on t o t he j ur y char ge3
based on Ski l l i ng, t he Cour t det er mi ned:4
Ther e i s no subst ance t o t hi s ar gument .5Bot t i nowher e suggest s what t hi s al t er nat i ve,6const i t ut i onal l y i mper mi ssi bl e t heor y of7wr ongdoi ng mi ght be. That i s not sur pr i si ng,8si nce t her e i s no evi dence i n t he r ecor d of any9sor t of wr ongdoi ng ot her t han Bot t i s br i ber y of10publ i c of f i ci al s. The i ndi ct ment di d not char ge11any al t er nat i ve t heor y. Nei t her t he gover nment12nor t he def endant argued any ot her t heor y at13t r i al . Nei t her t he j ur y char ge nor t he ver di ct14f or m suggest s any ot her t heor y. Ther e wer e no15f act s, evi dence or t est i mony pr esent ed at t r i al16t hat coul d r easonabl y suppor t or gi ve r i se t o an17al t er nat i ve t heor y. Bot t i suggest s none. To18concl ude t hat t he j ur y mi ght have convi ct ed t he19Def endant on some t heor y of honest ser vi ces mai l20f r aud ot her t han t he br i ber y theor y suggest ed i n21t he j ur y char ge woul d r equi r e pur e specul at i on on22t he Cour t s par t , and an assumpt i on t hat t he j ur y23act ed i n an unr easonabl e manner i n cont r i vi ng24
some gr ounds f or convi ct i on ot her t han t he25obvi ous one cl ear l y suppor t ed by t he recor d.26
27Accor di ngl y, t he Di st r i ct Cour t deni ed t he post - t r i al mot i ons.28
Thi s appeal f ol l owed. 29
DI SCUSSI ON30
I .31
The f i r st i ssue i s what st andard of r evi ew appl i es t o32
Bot t i s cl ai m of er r or . Gener al l y, t he pr opr i et y of j ur y33
i nst r uct i ons i s a mat t er of l aw t hat i s r evi ewed de novo.34
Uni t ed St at es v. Bahel , 662 F. 3d 610, 634 ( 2d Ci r . 2011) . A35
-
7/29/2019 Botti Ruling
18/36
- 18-
j ury i nst r uct i on i s er r oneous i f i t mi sl eads t he j ury as t o1
t he cor r ect l egal st andar d or does not adequat el y i nf or m t he2
j ury on t he l aw. I d. ( quot i ng Uni t ed Stat es v. Bok, 156 F. 3d3
157, 160 ( 2d Ci r . 1998) ) ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) .4
I f t he def endant obj ect ed t o an er r oneous j ur y5
i nst r uct i on at t r i al and r ai ses t he same cl ai m of er r or on6
appeal , a har ml ess er r or st andar d of r evi ew appl i es. See,7
e. g. , Uni t ed St at es v. Geor ge, 266 F. 3d 52, 58 ( 2d Ci r . 2001) ,8
vacat ed i n par t on ot her gr ounds, 386 F. 3d 383 ( 2d Ci r . 2004) .9
Under t hi s st andar d of r evi ew, a convi ct i on wi l l be af f i r med10
onl y i f i t i s cl ear beyond a r easonabl e doubt t hat a r at i onal11
j ury woul d have f ound t he def endant gui l t y absent t he er r or . 12
Uni t ed St at es v. Mahaf f y, 693 F. 3d 113, 136 ( 2d Ci r . 2012)13
( quot i ng Uni t ed St at es v. Kozeny, 667 F. 3d 122, 130 ( 2d Ci r .14
2011) ) ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) .15
I f t he def endant di d not obj ect t o an er r oneous j ur y16
i nst r ucti on bef or e t he j ur y r et i r ed t o consi der i t s ver di ct, a17
pl ai n er r or st andar d of r evi ew appl i es. See J ohnson v. Uni t ed18
St at es, 520 U. S. 461, 465- 66 ( 1997) ( ci t i ng Fed. R. Cr i m. P.19
30) ; Bahel , 662 F. 3d at 634. Under t hi s st andar d of r evi ew,20
t he Cour t of Appeal s has di scr et i on t o r ever se onl y i f t he21
i nst r ucti on cont ai ns ( 1) er r or , ( 2) t hat i s pl ai n, and ( 3)22
t hat af f ect [ s] subst ant i al r i ght s. J ohnson, 520 U. S. at 46723
( quot i ng Uni t ed St at es v. Ol ano, 507 U. S. 725, 732 ( 1993) )24
-
7/29/2019 Botti Ruling
19/36
- 19-
( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed and al t er at i on i n or i gi nal ) .1
I f t hose thr ee condi t i ons are met , a cour t may exer ci se i t s2
di scr et i on t o cor r ect t he er r or onl y i f t he er r or ser i ousl y3
af f ect [ ed] t he f ai r ness, i nt egr i t y or publ i c r eput at i on of4
j udi ci al proceedi ngs. I d. at 467 ( quot i ng Ol ano, 507 U. S. at5
732) ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) .6
Bot t i ar gues t hat he obj ect ed t o t he j ur y i nst r uct i on,7
and t her ef or e, a t r adi t i onal har ml ess er r or st andar d of r evi ew8
shoul d appl y. Thi s ar gument i s wi t hout mer i t . Def ense9
counsel s obj ect i on t o t he pr oposed i nst r uct i on at t he char ge10
conf er ence was not based on t he i nst r uct i on s f ai l ur e11
expr essl y t o l i mi t honest ser vi ces f r aud t o br i ber y and12
ki ckback schemes. Rat her , Bot t i s counsel obj ect ed t o t he13
i nst r uct i on because i t was so skewed t o t he al l egat i ons14
her e, and i t was not a gener i c descr i pt i on of t hef t of15
honest servi ces. I n shor t , Bot t i obj ect ed because t he16
pr oposed i nst r uct i on was t oo f ocused on br i bery as t he means17
f or commi t t i ng honest servi ces f r aud, not because i t l acked18
t hat f ocus. These ci r cumst ances come cl ose t o a wai ver of any19
appel l at e chal l enge t o t he i nst r ucti on f or f ai l i ng t o l i mi t20
honest servi ces mai l f r aud t o br i ber y. See Uni t ed St at es v.21
Qui nones, 511 F. 3d 289, 321- 23 ( 2d Ci r . 2007) ( di scussi ng t r ue22
wai ver ) . I n any event , because Bot t i di d not obj ect at t r i al23
-
7/29/2019 Botti Ruling
20/36
- 20-
on t he gr ounds r ai sed i n t hi s appeal , har ml ess err or r evi ew1
does not appl y.2
Nor i s modi f i ed pl ai n er r or r evi ew war r ant ed her e. See3
Uni t ed St at es v. Vi ol a, 35 F. 3d 37, 42 ( 2d Ci r . 1994) ( pl aci ng4
t he bur den on t he Government t o show t hat pl ai n err or i n5
l i ght of a super veni ng deci si on di d not af f ect subst ant i al6
r i ght s) . The Supr eme Cour t s deci si on i n J ohnson v. Uni t ed7
St at es, 520 U. S. 461, cal l ed i nt o quest i on t he modi f i ed pl ai n8
er r or st andar d of r evi ew t hat t hi s Cour t est abl i shed i n Vi ol a.9
I n J ohnson, t he def endant had been charged wi t h maki ng a f al se10
mat er i al decl ar at i on under oat h bef or e a gr and j ur y i n11
vi ol at i on of 18 U. S. C. 1623. 520 U. S. at 463. The Di st r i ct12
Cour t i nst r uct ed t he j ur y t hat mat er i al i t y was a quest i on f or13
t he j udge t o deci de, and t he def ense di d not obj ect . I d. at14
464. The t r i al j udge ul t i mat el y f ound t hat t he st at ement s15
wer e mat er i al , and t he j ur y r et ur ned a ver di ct of gui l t y. I d.16
Af t er J ohnson s convi ct i on, but bef or e her appeal t o t he Cour t17
of Appeal s, t he Supr eme Cour t deci ded Uni t ed St ates v. Gaudi n,18
515 U. S. 506 ( 1995) , whi ch est abl i shed t hat a j ur y must deci de19
mat er i al i t y. J ohnson, 520 U. S. at 464. When J ohnson s case20
r eached t he Supr eme Cour t , t he Cour t appl i ed pl ai n er r or21
r evi ew wi t hout ment i oni ng modi f i ed pl ai n er r or r evi ew. I d. at22
466- 67. The Cour t f ound t hat t he f ai l ur e t o i nst r uct t he j ur y23
t hat mat er i al i t y was an el ement of t he of f ense was er r or and24
-
7/29/2019 Botti Ruling
21/36
- 21-
t hat i t was pl ai n. I d. at 467- 68. The Cour t di d not deci de1
t he t hi r d el ement whet her t he f or f ei t ed er r or af f ect ed2
subst ant i al r i ght sbecause t he Cour t det er mi ned t hat t he3
sat i sf act i on of t he f i r st t hr ee f act or s onl y gave t he Cour t4
di scr et i on t o cor r ect t he er r or i f t he er r or ser i ousl y5
af f ected t he f ai r ness, i nt egr i t y, or publ i c reput at i on of t he6
j udi ci al proceedi ngs. I d. at 468- 70. The Cour t never pl aced7
t he bur den of pr oof on t he Government . See i d. at 470.8
I ndeed, t he Cour t caut i oned agai nst any unwarr ant ed expansi on9
of or creat i on of any except i ons t o t he pl ai n er r or r ul e i n10
Rul e 52( b) of t he Feder al Rul es of Cr i mi nal Pr ocedur e. I d. at11
466. I n t he f i nal st ep of i t s anal ysi s, t he Cour t eval uat ed12
whether t he def endant had pr esent ed a pl ausi bl e ar gument t hat13
t he er r or i n t he char ge had af f ect ed t he f ai r ness, i nt egr i t y,14
or publ i c r eput at i on of t he pr oceedi ngs. The Cour t concl uded15
t hat t he er r or di d not ser i ousl y af f ect t he f ai r ness,16
i nt egr i t y or publ i c r eput at i on of j udi ci al pr oceedi ngs and17
af f i r med t he j udgment of t he Cour t of Appeal s sust ai ni ng the18
convi ct i on. I d. at 470.19
Wi t hout deci di ng whet her J ohnson over r ul ed Vi ol a, t hi s20
Cour t has f r equent l y decl i ned t o r each t he quest i on of whet her21
t he modi f i ed pl ai n er r or st andar d of r evi ew cont i nues t o appl y22
when t here has been a superveni ng change i n t he l aw af t er a23
-
7/29/2019 Botti Ruling
22/36
- 22-
convi ct i on. 2 See, e. g. , Uni t ed St at es v. Nour i , No. 09- 3627-1
CR, 2013 WL 780918, at *6 n. 2 ( 2d Ci r . Mar . 4, 2013) ; Bahel ,2
662 F. 3d at 634; Henr y, 325 F. 3d 93, 100 n. 4 ( 2d Ci r . 2003) ;3
Uni t ed St at es v. Out en, 286 F. 3d 622, 639 n. 18 ( 2d Ci r .4
2002) . 3 I n t hi s case, i t i s al so unnecessar y t o deci de5
whet her t he modi f i ed pl ai n er r or st andar d of r evi ew sur vi ved6
J ohnson because t he r at i onal e ani mat i ng t he modi f i ed pl ai n7
err or st andard of r evi ewt hat t he def endant shoul d not have t o8
show pr ej udi ce f r oman err or when t he def endant di d not9
cont r i but e t o t he er r or and had no basi s t o obj ect t o t he10
er r or does not appl y. See Vi ol a, 35 F. 3d at 42- 43. I n Vi ol a,11
t hi s Cour t expl ai ned t hat t he pur pose of t he modi f i ed pl ai n12
er r or st andar d of r evi ew was t o avoi d i nsi st i ng on an13
omni sci ence on the par t of def endant s about t he cour se of t he14
2 I n Mahaf f y, 693 F. 3d 113, t hi s Cour t appl i ed modi f i ed pl ai ner r or anal ysi s. I d. at 136. However , i n Mahaf f y, t hedef endant had obj ect ed at t r i al on t he gr ounds r ai sed i n hi sappeal . I d. at 122. Ther ef or e, i t woul d not have been unf ai rt o pl ace t he bur den on t he Government t o show t hat t he er r orhad not pr ej udi ced t he def endant .3 Under si mi l ar ci r cumst ances, ot her Cour t s of Appeal s appl yt he t r adi t i onal pl ai n er r or st andar d of r evi ew. See, e. g. ,Uni t ed St at es v. Pel i samen, 641 F. 3d 399, 404 ( 9t h Ci r . 2011)
( appl yi ng a pl ai n er r or st andar d of r evi ew i n a case wher et her e wer e no l egal gr ounds f or chal l engi ng t he i nst r uct i onsat t he t i me t hey wer e gi ven, but such l egal gr ounds ha[ d]si nce ar i sen due to a new r ul e of l aw ar i si ng bet ween t he t i meof convi ct i on and t he t i me of appeal ) ; see al so i d. at 404- 05( col l ect i ng cases and expl ai ni ng t hat no Cour t of Appeal sot her t han t he Cour t of Appeal s f or t he Second Ci r cui t hasadopt ed t he modi f i ed pl ai n er r or st andar d of r evi ew) .
-
7/29/2019 Botti Ruling
23/36
- 23-
l aw t hat we do not have as j udges. 35 F. 3d at 42. At1
Bot t i s t r i al , t he Gover nment sought an i nst r uct i on t hat2
pl ai nl y woul d have est abl i shed br i ber y as t he onl y basi s f or3
t he honest servi ces mai l f r aud char ge al l eged i n t hi s case.4
Bot t i s counsel r esi st ed t hat i nst r uct i on because i t was so5
skewed to t he al l egat i ons agai nst Bot t i . Modi f i ed pl ai n6
er r or r evi ew shoul d not appl y when i t i s t he def endant s7
di scomf or t wi t h t he pr oposed j ur y i nst r uct i on t hat cont r i but ed8
t o t he er r or about whi ch t he def endant now compl ai ns.9
Accor di ngl y, i n t hi s case, t he i nst r uct i on wi l l be r evi ewed10
under t he t r adi t i onal pl ai n er r or st andar d.11
I I .12
Under a pl ai n er r or st andar d of r evi ew, i f t hi s Cour t13
f i nds that t he j ur y i nstr uct i on ( i ) was er r or ; ( i i ) t hat t he14
er r or was pl ai n; and ( i i i ) t hat t he er r or af f ected subst ant i al15
r i ght s, t hen t hi s Cour t ( i v) has di scret i on t o cor r ect t he16
er r or , but [ i t ] i s not r equi r ed t o do so. See Ol ano, 50717
U. S. at 735; see al so Fed. R. Cr i m. P. 52( b) . I t i s wel l18
est abl i shed t hat t he di scr et i on conf er r ed by Rul e 52( b)19
shoul d be empl oyed i n t hose ci r cumst ances i n whi ch a20
mi scar r i age of j ust i ce woul d ot her wi se r esul t . Ol ano, 50721
U. S. at 736 ( quot i ng Uni t ed St at es v. Young, 470 U. S. 1, 1522
( 1985) ) ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) . Accor di ngl y, i f23
t he f i r st t hr ee condi t i ons ar e met , t hi s Cour t shoul d exer ci se24
-
7/29/2019 Botti Ruling
24/36
- 24-
i t s di scr et i on t o cor r ect t he er r or onl y i f i t ser i ousl y1
af f ect [ ed] t he f ai r ness, i nt egr i t y or publ i c r eput at i on of2
j udi ci al proceedi ngs. J ohnson, 520 U. S. at 470 ( al t er at i on3
i n or i gi nal and ci t at i on omi t t ed) .4
A.5
I n t hi s case, t he f ai l ur e of t he j ur y i nstr uct i on t o6
speci f y t hat t he Government was r equi r ed t o pr ove honest7
servi ces mai l f r aud by a br i ber y or ki ckback scheme was pl ai n8
er r or , sat i sf yi ng t he f i r st t wo Ol ano f actor s. Er r or i s9
devi at i on f r om a l egal r ul e, unl ess t he r ul e has been wai ved10
by i nt ent i onal r el i nqui shment or abandonment of a known11
r i ght . Ol ano, 507 U. S. at 732- 33 ( quot i ng J ohnson v. Zer bst ,12
304 U. S. 458, 464 ( 1938) ) . Er r or i s pl ai n i f i t i s cl ear or13
obvi ous. Ol ano, 507 U. S. at 734. Whet her an er r or i s14
pl ai n i s det er mi ned by ref er ence t o t he l aw as of t he t i me15
of appeal . Uni t ed St at es v. Gar ci a, 587 F. 3d 509, 520 ( 2d16
Ci r . 2009) ( quot i ng Uni t ed St at es v. Gamez, 577 F. 3d 394, 40017
( 2d Ci r . 2009) ( per cur i am) ) ( quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) ; see18
al so Hender son v. Uni t ed St at es, 133 S. Ct . 1121, 1130- 3119
( 2013) ( hol di ng t hat r egar dl ess of whet her a l egal quest i on20
was set t l ed or unset t l ed at t he t i me of t r i al , a cour t of21
appeal s i s bound t o appl y the l aw as i t exi st s at t he t i me of22
appeal ) .23
-
7/29/2019 Botti Ruling
25/36
- 25-
The Supreme Cour t hel d i n Ski l l i ng t hat t he honest1
ser vi ces f r aud encompassed by 18 U. S. C. 1346 must be l i mi t ed2
t o schemes i nvol vi ng br i bes or ki ckbacks i n or der t o avoi d due3
pr ocess concer ns. See 130 S. Ct . at 2931. Bot t i cor r ect l y4
ar gues t hat t he Di st r i ct Cour t s j ur y i nst r uct i on on honest5
ser vi ces mai l f r aud f ai l ed t o ant i ci pat e and, t her ef or e, t o6
sat i sf y t hi s r equi r ement because i t empl oyed l anguage br oad7
enough t o encompass a non- br i ber y t heory, whi ch t he Supreme8
Cour t f ound unconst i t ut i onal i n Ski l l i ng. Thi s Cour t has hel d9
t hat , af t er Ski l l i ng, i t i s er r or f or a di s t r i ct cour t t o f ai l10
t o l i mi t honest servi ces f r aud t o br i ber y or ki ckback schemes11
i n t he j ur y i nst r uct i ons. See, e. g. , Uni t ed St at es v. Br uno,12
661 F. 3d 733, 740 ( 2d Ci r . 2011) . Because t he Di st r i ct13
Cour t s i nst r uct i on di d not speci f y t hat onl y br i bes or14
ki ckbacks coul d suppor t an honest servi ces mai l f r aud15
convi ct i on, i t was pl ai nl y er r oneous.16
B.17
I n t hi s case, however , Bot t i has f ai l ed t o est abl i sh t hat18
t he pl ai n er r or i n t he char ge af f ect ed hi s subst ant i al r i ght s.19
When eval uat i ng t he ef f ect of an al l egedl y er r oneous j ur y20
i nst r uct i on, t he j ur y char ge must be r ead as a whol e. See21
gener al l y Uni t ed St at es v. Al l ah, 130 F. 3d 33, 42 ( 2d Ci r .22
1997) ( col l ect i ng cases) . Thi s Cour t has rever sed i n cases23
t r i ed bef or e Ski l l i ng and deci ded on appeal af t er Ski l l i ng24
-
7/29/2019 Botti Ruling
26/36
- 26-
wher e the Gover nment argued a non- br i ber y or - ki ckback scheme1
t heor y of honest ser vi ces mai l f r aud, or where the Government2
i nt er t wi ned an al t er nat i ve t heor y wi t h a br i ber y or ki ckback3
scheme t heor y. See, e. g. , Mahaf f y, 693 F. 3d at 136; Br uno,4
661 F. 3d at 739- 40; see al so Uni t ed St at es v. Hor nsby, 6665
F. 3d 296, 306- 07 ( 4t h Ci r . 2012) ; Uni t ed St at es v. Wr i ght , 6656
F. 3d 560, 570- 72 ( 3d Ci r . 2012) ; Uni t ed St at es v. Ri l ey, 6217
F. 3d 312, 321- 24 ( 3d Ci r . 2010) . I n cont r ast , i n cases t r i ed8
bef or e Ski l l i ng and deci ded on appeal af t er Ski l l i ng wher e t he9
j ury i nst r uct i on di d not speci f y t hat a gui l t y ver di ct coul d10
be r et ur ned onl y i f t he j ur y f ound t hat t he def endant engaged11
i n a br i bery or ki ckback scheme, but t he evi dence woul d12
suppor t onl y a br i ber y or ki ckback scheme t heor y, t hi s Cour t13
has af f i r med. See, e. g. , Nour i , 2013 WL 780918, at *5- *8; see14
al so Uni t ed St at es v. Andr ews, 681 F. 3d 509, 521 ( 3d Ci r .15
2012) ; Uni t ed St at es v. Spel l i ssy, 438 F. App x 780, 783- 8416
( 11t h Ci r . 2011) ( af f i r mi ng t he deni al of a pet i t i on f or a17
wr i t of er r or cor am nobi s) ; see gener al l y Andr ews, 681 F. 3d at18
521- 28 ( col l ect i ng cases) . Thi s i s such a case.19
Bot t i i s corr ect t hat , af t er Ski l l i ng, a j ury i nstr uct i on20
must r equi r e t he j ur y t o f i nd t hat t he def endant par t i ci pat ed21
i n honest servi ces mai l f r aud by way of a br i ber y or ki ckback22
scheme. However , i t does not f ol l ow t hat r ever sal i s23
necessary i n ever y case i n whi ch t he Di st r i ct Cour t er r ed by24
-
7/29/2019 Botti Ruling
27/36
- 27-
f ai l i ng t o gi ve t hat i nst r uct i on. Vi ewi ng t he er r oneous j ur y1
i nst r uct i on i n t hi s case i n l i ght of t he char ge as a whol e and2
i n t he cont ext of pr oceedi ngs i n whi ch depr i vat i on of honest3
servi ces by br i ber y was t he onl y t heor y t hat t he evi dence4
woul d suppor t and the onl y t heor y t hat t he Government argued5
at t r i al , t he Di str i ct Cour t s f ai l ur e t o l i mi t honest6
servi ces mai l f r aud t o a br i ber y or ki ckback scheme di d not7
af f ect Bot t i s substant i al r i ght s.8
i .9
Br i ber y i s t he onl y theor y of honest ser vi ces f r aud t hat10
t he Gover nment pr esent ed i n t he i ndi ct ment or ar gued at t r i al ,11
and t he Di st r i ct Cour t s i nst r uct i ons on t he mai l f r aud char ge12
r ef l ected t hat . The Di st r i ct Cour t began i t s i nst r uct i ons by13
r eadi ng most of t he i ndi ct ment t o t he j ur y. The i ndi ct ment14
det ai l ed ext ensi ve al l egat i ons of Bot t i s pr ovi di ng publ i c15
of f i ci al s wi t h money and ot her benef i t s i n or der t o secur e16
appr oval f or cer t ai n devel opment pr oj ect s. The Di st r i ct Cour t17
i nst r uct ed t he j ur y on t he br i ber y count , dur i ng whi ch i t18
def i ned a br i be as a cor r upt payment t hat a person pr ovi des19
t o a publ i c of f i ci al wi t h t he i nt ent t o i nf l uence t he of f i ci al20
i n t he per f or mance of hi s or her publ i c dut i es. The Di st r i ct21
Cour t t hen di r ect ed t he j ur y t o Count Thr ee of t he i ndi ct ment ,22
t he mai l f r aud char ge, r ead t he al l egat i ons and t he r el evant23
st at ut or y pr ovi si ons, and expl ai ned t he el ement s of t he24
-
7/29/2019 Botti Ruling
28/36
- 28-
of f ense. Al t hough t he Di st r i ct Cour t di d not expl ai n t hat1
br i ber y i s t he onl y t heor y that can suppor t a convi ct i on of2
honest ser vi ces mai l f r aud, br i ber y i s t he onl y exampl e i t3
pr ovi ded of how t he Government coul d pr ove the honest ser vi ces4
depr i vat i on pr ong of mai l f r aud. Thi s i s not a case wher e t he5
charge was i nt erwoven wi t h an al t ernat i ve t heor y of how t he6
publ i c coul d have been depr i ved of t he honest servi ces of i t s7
of f i ci al s such as by a conf l i ct of i nt er est t heor y, see, e. g. ,8
Br uno, 661 F. 3d at 739- 40. 9
Bot t i ar gues t hat [ t ] he Di st r i ct Cour t s i nst r ucti on10
al l owed t he payment of a br i be t o be but one of many pat hs11
r at her t han t he onl y pat h t o convi ct i on of honest ser vi ces12
mai l f r aud. He suggest s sever al pot ent i al al t er nat i ve13
t heor i es t hat coul d have suppor t ed hi s convi ct i on. These14
t heor i es ar e di vor ced f r om t he cont ext of t he t r i al and cannot15
pl ausi bl y expl ai n t he j ur y s gui l t y ver di ct.16
Bot t i ar gues t hat t he def i ni t i on of scheme or ar t i f i ce17
t hat t he Di st r i ct Cour t pr ovi ded al l owed t he j ur y t o convi ct18
hi m of honest servi ces mai l f r aud based si mpl y on a f i ndi ng of19
f r aud, decept i on, or mi sr epr esent at i on. The Di st r i ct Cour t20
def i ned scheme or ar t i f i ce as a pl an f or t he accompl i shment21
of an obj ect , and a scheme to def r aud as,22
[ A] ny pl an . . . or cour se of act i on t o obt ai n money23or pr oper t y or t he i nt angi bl e r i ght of honest24servi ces by means of mat er i al l y f al se or f r audul ent25
-
7/29/2019 Botti Ruling
29/36
- 29-
pr et enses, r epr esent at i ons, and pr omi ses r easonabl y1cal cul at ed t o decei ve per sons of aver age pr udence2. . . a pl an t o depr i ve anot her of money or pr oper t y3or of t he i nt angi bl e r i ght t o honest ser vi ces by4t r i ck, decei t , decept i on, or swi ndl e.5
6 The Di st r i ct Court provi ded t hese def i ni t i ons wi t hi n t he7
l ar ger expl anat i on t hat t he scheme or ar t i f i ce el ement of8
honest ser vi ces mai l f r aud r equi r ed a scheme or ar t i f i ce t o9
depr i ve t he ci t i zens of Shel t on of t he i nt angi bl e r i ght of t he10
honest ser vi ces of t he of f i ci al s as al l eged i n t he11
i ndi ct ment . 12
I n cont ext , t he j ur y coul d not have under st ood t hi s13
def i ni t i on as anyt hi ng mor e t han a basi c def i ni t i on of a14
scheme or ar t i f i ce t o def r aud. The j ur y coul d not have15
under st ood the def i ni t i on as pr ovi di ng an i ndependent t heor y16
of honest servi ces f r aud. Mai l f r aud r equi r es bot h a scheme17
or ar t i f i ce t o def r aud and an obj ect of t hat f r aud.18
Pasquant i no v. Uni t ed St at es, 544 U. S. 349, 355 ( 2005) . At19
t r i al , t he Gover nment pr esent ed t wo theor i es of mai l f r aud,20
each wi t h di st i nct obj ect s: ( i ) a scheme t o obt ai n money21
f r audul ent l y f r om NewAl l i ance Bank, and ( i i ) a scheme to22
depr i ve t he ci t i zens of Shel t on of t he honest ser vi ces of23
t hei r publ i c of f i ci al s by br i ber y. The vi ct i m of t he scheme24
t o obt ai n money f r audul ent l y was NewAl l i ance Bank, whereas t he25
vi ct i ms of t he honest servi ces f r aud scheme wer e the ci t i zens26
of Shel t on. The Di st r i ct Cour t made t hi s cl ear when, at27
-
7/29/2019 Botti Ruling
30/36
- 30-
sever al poi nt s i n t he char ge i t cl ar i f i ed t hat , wi t h r espect1
t o t he honest ser vi ces char ge, i t was t he publ i c, or t he2
ci t i zens of Shel t on, who wer e t he vi ct i ms of t he scheme or3
ar t i f i ce t o def r aud, and t he Di st r i ct Cour t speci f i ed t hat t he4
t r i ck or swi ndl e i nvol ved i n a br i be was t hat t he br i bee,5
whi l e out war dl y appear i ng t o be exer ci si ng i ndependen[ ce] i n6
hi s or her of f i ci al wor k . . . i nst ead has been pai d pr i vat el y7
f or hi s or her publ i c conduct . Because t he j ur y char ge8
cannot be r ead as endorsi ng, or even suggest i ng, a t heor y of9
honest ser vi ces mai l f r aud t hat i s predi cat ed on a10
f r eest andi ng or amor phous swi ndl e or t r i ck, t hi s t heor y cannot11
expl ai n t he j ur y s ver di ct .12
Bot t i al so ar gues t hat t he j ur y coul d have convi ct ed hi m13
of honest ser vi ces mai l f r aud based on t he f ai l ur e t o di scl ose14
t he busi ness r el at i onshi p he had wi t h Fracassi ni and Wi t ki ns15
who t est i f i ed on Bot t i s behal f bef or e t he Pl anni ng and Zoni ng16
Commi ssi on. Ther ef or e, Bot t i ar gues t hat t he j ur y i nst r uct i on17
per mi t t ed t he j ur y to convi ct hi m based on hi s decept i on of18
t he Pl anni ng and Zoni ng Commi ssi on. However , t he Government19
di d not suggest t o t he j ur y that sendi ng empl oyees t o a publ i c20
meet i ng t o advocat e f or Bot t i s i nt er est s wi t hout di scl osi ng21
t hat t hey wor ked f or Bot t i const i t ut ed honest servi ces mai l22
f r aud. The decept i on of t he Pl anni ng and Zoni ng Commi ss i on23
was used as an i nst ance of t he mi sr epr esent at i ons t hat Bot t i24
-
7/29/2019 Botti Ruling
31/36
- 31-
had used t o obt ai n appr oval f or t he 828 Pr oj ect f r om t he1
Pl anni ng and Zoni ng Commi ssi on and, as a r esul t , f i nanci ng2
f r om NewAl l i ance Bank.3
Mor eover , t he j ur y coul d not have convi ct ed Bot t i of4
honest servi ces mai l f r aud on t he basi s of t he decept i on of5
t he Pl anni ng and Zoni ng Commi ss i on consi st ent wi t h t he6
Di st r i ct Cour t s i nst r uct i ons. The honest ser vi ces f r aud7
i nst r uct i on was based upon t he pr emi se t hat [ a] publ i c8
of f i ci al or l ocal gover nment empl oyee owes a dut y of honest ,9
f ai t hf ul , and di si nt er est ed ser vi ce t o t he publ i c and t o t he10
gover nment t hat he or she serves. Thus, t he Di st r i ct Cour t11
cl ar i f i ed, t he publ i c may be depr i ved of t hat r i ght when an12
of f i ci al uses hi s or her publ i c posi t i on f or sel f - enr i chment 13
by, f or exampl e, t aki ng a br i be, because t he of f i ci al i s no14
l onger exer ci si ng i ndependen[ ce] i n hi s or her of f i ci al15
wor k, and t he publ i c i s not r ecei vi ng t he publ i c of f i ci al s16
honest and f ai t hf ul ser vi ce t o whi ch i t i s ent i t l ed. Thi s17
def i ni t i on of honest ser vi ces mai l f r aud r equi r es t hat a18
publ i c of f i ci al be wor ki ng di shonest l y, unf ai t hf ul l y, or19
i nt er est edl y. A publ i c of f i ci al who has been decei ved coul d20
not r easonabl y f al l wi t hi n such a def i ni t i on.21
Bot t i al so suggest s t hat t he j ur y coul d have r el i ed on22
evi dence of sel f - enr i chment wi t hout br i ber y t o sat i sf y t he23
honest servi ces pr ong of mai l f r aud. However , t he Di st r i ct24
-
7/29/2019 Botti Ruling
32/36
- 32-
Cour t s use of t he t er m sel f - enr i chment i n t he j ur y1
i nst r uct i on pl ai nl y encompassed br i ber y. Ther e i s no2
r easonabl e vi ew of t he evi dence t hat woul d suppor t a f i ndi ng3
t hat t he publ i c of f i ci al s enr i ched t hemsel ves other t han4
t hr ough t he r ecei pt of br i bes. I n t hi s case, t he Gover nment5
di d not of f er any al t er nat i ve t heor y of sel f - enr i chment , such6
as thr ough a conf l i ct of i nt er est scheme. See, e. g. , Br uno,7
661 F. 3d at 740.8
I n t wo f oot not es i n hi s br i ef s t o t hi s Cour t , Bot t i9
suggest s t hat t he j ur y coul d have convi ct ed hi m of honest10
ser vi ces mai l f r aud based on hi s pr ovi si on t o Shel t on publ i c11
of f i ci al s of gi f t s and benef i t s that di d not const i t ut e12
br i bes. Thi s cur sor y ar gument i s not a basi s f or r ever sal .13
I t i s a set t l ed appel l at e r ul e t hat i ssues adver t ed t o i n a14
per f unct ory manner , unaccompani ed by some ef f or t at devel oped15
ar gument at i on, are deemed wai ved. Thi s rul e has par t i cul ar16
f orce where an appel l ant makes an argument onl y i n a17
f oot note. Ni agara Mohawk Power Corp. v. Hudson Ri ver - Bl ack18
Ri ver Regul at i ng Di st . , 673 F. 3d 84, 107 ( 2d Ci r . 2012)19
( quot i ng Tol ber t v. Queens Col l . , 242 F. 3d 58, 75 ( 2d Ci r .20
2001) ) ( quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) .21
Mor eover , a gi f t s or benef i t s t heor y of honest ser vi ces22
mai l f r aud i s i nconsi st ent wi t h t he t r i al r ecor d. The23
i ndi ct ment char ged and t he t r i al r ecor d suppor t ed t hat t he24
-
7/29/2019 Botti Ruling
33/36
- 33-
gi f t s Bot t i gave t o t he Shel t on publ i c of f i ci al s wer e i n1
exchange f or f avor abl e act i ons that t hey t ook f or hi m. Wi t h2
r espect t o t he Mayor , t he i ndi ct ment charged and t he evi dence3
suppor t ed t hat Bot t i pr ovi ded benef i t s t o t he Mayor of Shel t on4
f r omabout 2002 to 2006 and t hat he expected t hat t he5
benef i t s he pr ovi ded t o [ t he Mayor of Shel t on] woul d r esul t i n6
f avor abl e t r eat ment f or Bot t i and hi s const r uct i on pr oj ect s. 7
Such a pat t er n of behavi or i s suf f i ci ent t o est abl i sh br i ber y:8
[ I ] n or der t o est abl i sh t he qui d pr o quo essent i al9t o pr ovi ng br i bery, t he government need not show10t hat t he def endant i nt ended f or hi s payment s t o be11t i ed t o speci f i c of f i ci al act s ( or omi ssi ons).12Rather , br i bery can be accompl i shed t hr ough an13ongoi ng cour se of conduct , so l ong as evi dence shows14t hat t he f avor s and gi f t s f l owi ng t o a publ i c15of f i ci al [ ar e] i n exchange f or a pat t er n of of f i ci al16act i ons f avor abl e t o t he donor .17
18Bahel , 662 F. 3d at 635 ( i nt er nal quotat i ons mar ks and19
ci t at i ons omi t t ed) .20
The Government al so cont ended and t he evi dence suppor t ed21
t hat t he benef i t s t hat Bot t i gave t o t he member s of t he22
Pl anni ng and Zoni ng Commi ssi on were made i n exchange f or t hei r23
suppor t f or t he 828 Pr oj ect . The gi f t s t o t he member s of t he24
Pl anni ng and Zoni ng Commi ss i on were charged i n the por t i on of25
t he redact ed i ndi ct ment under t he headi ng, Bot t i Pr ovi des26
Thi ngs of Val ue t o Publ i c Of f i ci al s For Thei r Assi st ance. 27
The Government s Request t o Char ge expl ai ned i t s t heor y of28
honest ser vi ces f r aud as al l egi ng t he f ol l owi ng:29
-
7/29/2019 Botti Ruling
34/36
- 34-
[ Bot t i ] engaged i n a scheme to def r aud t he ci t i zens1of Shel t on, Connect i cut of t he i nt angi bl e r i ght t o2t he honest ser vi ces of i t s publ i c of f i ci al s by3pr ovi di ng benef i t s t o such of f i ci al s wi t h i nt ent t o4i nf l uence such of f i ci al s. Wher e t her e i s a st r eam5
of benef i t s arr anged by the payor t o f avor a publ i c6 of f i ci al , t he Gover nment need not demonst r at e t hat7any speci f i c benef i t was r ecei ved by t he publ i c8of f i ci al i n exchange f or a speci f i c of f i ci al act .9
10I t was unnecessar y f or t he Di st r i ct Cour t t o use the magi c11
wor ds cor r upt i nt ent or qui d pr o quo t o ef f ect i vel y char ge12
a j ur y on br i ber y. See Bahel , 662 F. 3d at 635.13
Bot t i s al t er nat i ve t heor i es ar e cont r ar y t o t he onl y14
t heor y of honest ser vi ces mai l f r aud t hat t he Government15
actual l y pr esent ed t o t he j ur y and t hat t he Government asked16
t he Cour t t o expl ai n as i t s theor y. Accor di ngl y, t hese17
al t er nat i ve t heor i es do not demonst r at e t hat Bot t i s18
convi ct i on was based on a non- br i bery theor y of honest19
ser vi ces mai l f r aud. 420
4 Bot t i al so ar gues t hat t he j ur y s f ai l ur e t o r et ur n a gui l t yver di ct on t he br i ber y char ge demonst r at es t hat i t coul d nothave convi ct ed hi m of honest servi ces mai l f r aud on a br i ber yt heor y. Thi s ar gument i s wi t hout mer i t .
The Supreme Cour t has i nst r uct ed l ower cour t s not t oat t empt t o di vi ne t he meani ng of a hung count when anal yzi ng aunani mous ver di ct on another count . See Yeager , 557 U. S. at
121- 22. Bot t i at t empt s t o di st i ngui sh Yeager on t he basi st hat i t i nvol ved a hung j ur y and an acqui t t al , wher eas t hi scase i nvol ves a hung j ur y and a convi ct i on. However , t her easoni ng i n Yeager was not as l i mi t ed as Bot t i suggest s. I d.at 120- 22. The Cour t expl ai ned t hat conj ect ur e aboutpossi bl e r easons f or a j ur y s f ai l ur e t o r each a deci si onshoul d pl ay no par t i n assessi ng t he l egal consequences of aunani mous ver di ct t hat t he j ur or s di d r et ur n. I d. at 122.
-
7/29/2019 Botti Ruling
35/36
- 35-
i i .1
Fi nal l y, assumi ng t hat we had di scr et i on t o r ever se t he2
convi ct i on, we woul d not exer ci se t hat di scr et i on i n t hi s case3
because t he er r or di d not ser i ousl y af f ect t he f ai r ness,4
i nt egr i t y or publ i c r eput at i on of j udi ci al pr oceedi ngs. 5
J ohnson, 520 U. S. at 470 ( al t er at i on omi t t ed) . The Government6
sought a pr oper i nst r uct i on t hat woul d have obvi at ed t he er r or7
i n t he j ur y charge and t he def ense demur r ed because t hat8
char ge hewed t oo cl osel y t o t he act ual pr oof i n t he case. The9
evi dence of t he br i be- based honest ser vi ces mai l f r aud was10
overwhel mi ng and there was no ot her pl ausi bl e t heor y pr esent ed11
t o t he j ur y. On t hi s recor d, i t cannot be sai d t hat t he er r or12
ser i ousl y af f ected t he f ai r ness, i nt egr i t y, or publ i c13
r eput at i on of t he j udi ci al pr oceedi ngs.14
Bot t i asks t hi s Cour t t o i nt ui t t he j ur y s l ogi c i nr et ur ni ng a convi ct i on on t he honest ser vi ces mai l f r audcharge by anal yzi ng t he br i bery charge on whi ch t he j ur y wasunabl e t o r each a ver di ct . Yeager f or ecl oses t hi s appr oach.See, e. g. , Hor nsby, 666 F. 3d at 305 n. 4 ( r ej ect i ng t heargument t hat i f br i bes were t he domi nant t heor y used t oconvi ct [ t he def endant ] , t hen t he j ur y woul d have f ound hi mgui l t y of t he count s t hat deal di r ect l y wi t h f act s suppor t i ng[ t he def endant ] s r ecei pt of money) .
Mor eover , t hi s woul d be a par t i cul ar l y i nappr opr i at e caset o f i nd an except i on t o Yeager . The honest servi ces mai lf r aud char ge of whi ch Bot t i was convi ct ed char ged a schemef r om i n or about 2002 t o def r aud t he ci t i zens of Shel t on oft he honest servi ces of t he Mayor of Shel t on and of ot herShel t on publ i c of f i ci al s. Unl i ke t he br i ber y count , i t wasnot l i mi t ed t o a si ngl e i nst ance of pr ovi di ng money t o t heMayor of Shel t on i n or about J une 2006.
-
7/29/2019 Botti Ruling
36/36
CONCLUSI ON1
We have consi der ed al l of t he ar gument s of t he par t i es.2
To t he ext ent not speci f i cal l y addressed above, t hey ar e3
ei t her moot or wi t hout mer i t . For t he r easons expl ai ned4
above, we AFFI RM t he j udgment of t he Di st r i ct Cour t .5