botti ruling

Upload: the-valley-indy

Post on 03-Apr-2018

221 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

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