Recently in the White Collar category:
Guest contributor Marshall Mintz writes:
Fraud based on the “deprivation of honest services” is a controversial charge likely to elicit some notable rulings from the Supreme Court this term, as noted here. In particular, the cases of Jeffrey Skilling and Conrad Black may produce decisions that reign in the reach of honest services fraud in the context of private businesses, two varieties of which have been identified by the Second Circuit in United States v. Rybicki: cases involving bribes or kickbacks, and cases involving self-dealing. Bribery/kickback cases need no introduction. Self-dealing cases, on the other hand, usually involve the defendant causing his employer to do business with a corporation or enterprise in which the defendant has a secret, undisclosed interest. In Rybicki, the Second Circuit adds that "[i]n the self-dealing context, though not in the bribery context, the defendant's behavior must [.] cause, or at least be capable of causing, some detriment – perhaps some economic or pecuniary detriment – to the employer.”
This distinction is at issue in United States v. Demizo, 2009 WL 2163099 (EDNY July 20, 2009), where the defendant was convicted after trial of securities fraud and making false statements. Because EDNY Judge Gleeson concluded, however, that there was no factual predicate to treat the case as a self-dealing one, he declined to defendant’s requested jury charge on the issue of detriment. The case also includes an interesting discussion on the issue of permitting the defendant to introduce at trial a statement the government made in a brief under the "admission of a party opponent” rule.
Refusal to Charge:
Relying on the Second Circuit’s decision in United States v. Rybicki, 354 F.3d 124 (2d Cir. 2003), the court rejected the argument that the jury should have been instructed that the fraud involved self-dealing as opposed to kickbacks, and the government was therefore required to prove a possible detriment to the employers.
Assuming the validity of the legal argument, the court deemed any such instruction inappropriate because the defense “failed to identify any evidence in the record that could permit the jury to find that this was a self-dealing case.” As the Second Circuit has suggested, self-dealing involves a situation where the defendant causes the employer to do business with a corporation or other enterprise in which the defendant has a “secret interest.” That term has not been defined, but the relevant cases all involve defendants who had undisclosed ownership interests in those entities and Demizio “did not argue that the record showed he had such a cognizable interest in the firms to which he steered his employer’s business.”
The court also rejected the defense’s argument that the case involved self-dealing because the government alleged a conflict of interest because, “every fraud case, including the kickback scheme at issue in Rybicki, involve a conflict of interest in that every individual has a personal interest in pocketing a kickback while every employer has an interest in hiring people who eschew such conduct.”
Refusal to Admit a Statement from a Government Brief
The defense also argued that it should have been permitted to introduce into evidence a government pre-trial brief submitted in opposition to a request for a bill of particulars, reasoning that statements made by an attorney concerning a matter within his employment may be admissible against the represented party.
The court explained that while the Second Circuit has previously considered the admissibility of statements made in a bill of particulars and opening statements made by defense counsel at a previous trial and found that, while not inadmissible per se, policy concerns weigh against allowing such statements to be admitted as admissions by a party-opponent. Against that backdrop, Judge Gleeson reasoned that because the brief was a legal memoranda and not a formal pleading, it was merely an assertion about the charges in the indictment – which is a charge of the grand jury – and could not properly be deemed a statement by the government .
Finally, rejecting the claim that the brief was evidence that the government had changed its theory during the trial, the court found the assertion irrelevant “to any factual issue submitted to the jury” and, in any event, the probative value was substantially outweighed by the risk of confusion.
Attorneys: David Spears, Charlita Mays (Spears & Imes LLP) (defendant); AUSA’s Winston Chan, Kelly T. Currie, Winston Paes
Fraud based on the “deprivation of honest services” is a controversial charge likely to elicit some notable rulings from the Supreme Court this term, as noted here. In particular, the cases of Jeffrey Skilling and Conrad Black may produce decisions that reign in the reach of honest services fraud in the context of private businesses, two varieties of which have been identified by the Second Circuit in United States v. Rybicki: cases involving bribes or kickbacks, and cases involving self-dealing. Bribery/kickback cases need no introduction. Self-dealing cases, on the other hand, usually involve the defendant causing his employer to do business with a corporation or enterprise in which the defendant has a secret, undisclosed interest. In Rybicki, the Second Circuit adds that "[i]n the self-dealing context, though not in the bribery context, the defendant's behavior must [.] cause, or at least be capable of causing, some detriment – perhaps some economic or pecuniary detriment – to the employer.”
This distinction is at issue in United States v. Demizo, 2009 WL 2163099 (EDNY July 20, 2009), where the defendant was convicted after trial of securities fraud and making false statements. Because EDNY Judge Gleeson concluded, however, that there was no factual predicate to treat the case as a self-dealing one, he declined to defendant’s requested jury charge on the issue of detriment. The case also includes an interesting discussion on the issue of permitting the defendant to introduce at trial a statement the government made in a brief under the "admission of a party opponent” rule.
Refusal to Charge:
Relying on the Second Circuit’s decision in United States v. Rybicki, 354 F.3d 124 (2d Cir. 2003), the court rejected the argument that the jury should have been instructed that the fraud involved self-dealing as opposed to kickbacks, and the government was therefore required to prove a possible detriment to the employers.
Assuming the validity of the legal argument, the court deemed any such instruction inappropriate because the defense “failed to identify any evidence in the record that could permit the jury to find that this was a self-dealing case.” As the Second Circuit has suggested, self-dealing involves a situation where the defendant causes the employer to do business with a corporation or other enterprise in which the defendant has a “secret interest.” That term has not been defined, but the relevant cases all involve defendants who had undisclosed ownership interests in those entities and Demizio “did not argue that the record showed he had such a cognizable interest in the firms to which he steered his employer’s business.”
The court also rejected the defense’s argument that the case involved self-dealing because the government alleged a conflict of interest because, “every fraud case, including the kickback scheme at issue in Rybicki, involve a conflict of interest in that every individual has a personal interest in pocketing a kickback while every employer has an interest in hiring people who eschew such conduct.”
Refusal to Admit a Statement from a Government Brief
The defense also argued that it should have been permitted to introduce into evidence a government pre-trial brief submitted in opposition to a request for a bill of particulars, reasoning that statements made by an attorney concerning a matter within his employment may be admissible against the represented party.
The court explained that while the Second Circuit has previously considered the admissibility of statements made in a bill of particulars and opening statements made by defense counsel at a previous trial and found that, while not inadmissible per se, policy concerns weigh against allowing such statements to be admitted as admissions by a party-opponent. Against that backdrop, Judge Gleeson reasoned that because the brief was a legal memoranda and not a formal pleading, it was merely an assertion about the charges in the indictment – which is a charge of the grand jury – and could not properly be deemed a statement by the government .
Finally, rejecting the claim that the brief was evidence that the government had changed its theory during the trial, the court found the assertion irrelevant “to any factual issue submitted to the jury” and, in any event, the probative value was substantially outweighed by the risk of confusion.
Attorneys: David Spears, Charlita Mays (Spears & Imes LLP) (defendant); AUSA’s Winston Chan, Kelly T. Currie, Winston Paes
Guest contributor Justin Sher writes:
In two recent cases involving former public officials – Joseph Bruno, the former majority leader of the New York State Senate, and Bernard Kerik, the former police commissioner of New York City – federal courts in New York declined to narrow the scope of the “honest services” theory of fraud. In United States v. Bruno, the court reaffirmed the principle that a state official may commit the federal crime of honest services fraud even if his conduct is legal under state law. In United States v. Kerik, the court ventured further by holding that a public official could commit the crime of honest services fraud by engaging in influence peddling even when the influence is directed at areas that are beyond the scope of the official’s authority. Both decisions highlight the difficulty many courts have had applying this vague and controversial statute, which Justice Scalia has described as “nothing more than an invitation for federal courts to develop a common-law crime of unethical conduct.” They also raise some of the same issues that are likely to be addressed by the Supreme Court this term in Weyhrauch v. United States.
Background on Honest Services Fraud
The honest services theory of fraud is codified in 18 U.S.C. § 1346. It provides that the federal statutes prohibiting mail and wire fraud extend to schemes that “deprive another of the intangible right of honest services.” Congress enacted section 1346 in 1988 in response to McNally v. United States, in which the Supreme Court ruled that the scope of the mail and wire fraud statutes was limited to the deprivation of tangible property rights. Since Congress’s abrogation of McNally through the adoption of section 1346, courts have struggled to define the honest services theory of fraud so that it applies to cases of clear corruption, such as those involving bribery and kickbacks, without applying to every instance of unethical or dishonest conduct.
United States v. Bruno
Facts
Joseph Bruno, the former Majority Leader of the New York State Senate, was charged with honest services fraud for failing to disclose conflicts of interest. The indictment alleged that Mr. Bruno had accepted employment that impaired his independent judgment, used his official position to secure unwarranted privileges and accepted unauthorized gifts. Mr. Bruno sought to dismiss the indictment on the grounds that the honest services statute is unconstitutionally vague both on its face and as applied. Mr. Bruno also argued that the charges violated principles of federalism because they served as a mechanism through which the federal government could regulate the ethical conduct of state officials. As part of his federalism argument, Mr. Bruno maintained that, as in other circuits, the government should be required to allege and prove an underlying state violation in order to charge a state official with honest services fraud. Finally, Mr. Bruno sought a stay pending the Supreme Court’s decision in Weyhrauch, where the Court is expected to address this very issue.
Holding
In a decision dated August 21, 2009, the court rejected all of Mr. Bruno’s arguments. United States v. Bruno, 2009 WL 2601249, No. 09 Cr. 29 (N.D.N.Y. Aug. 21, 2009). The court reaffirmed the pre-McNally rule announced in United States v. Margiotta, 688 F.2d 125 (2d Cir. 1982), that the government was not required to demonstrate a violation of a New York statute or a duty imposed by New York law in order to convict a state official of honest services fraud. The Court also held that the statute was neither unconstitutionally vague on its face nor as applied. Finally, noting that the law on these issues was “clear” in the Second Circuit and declining to speculate as to what the Supreme Court might do, the court refused to issue a stay.
Mr. Bruno’s trial is currently underway in the Northern District of New York.
United States v. Kerik
Facts
Bernard Kerik was charged with committing honest services fraud while he held the positions of Commissioner of the New York City Department of Corrections from 1998 through 2000 and New York City Police Commissioner from 2000 through 2002. The omnibus indictment also included charges, which are not relevant here, of tax fraud, mortgage fraud and making false statements to the federal government in connection with his nomination for the position of Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security.
The government alleged that Mr. Kerik used his influence as Commissioner of Corrections and subsequently as Police Commissioner, to “vouch” for XYZ Company, a construction company with ties to organized crime, in order to influence regulators and other public officials who were considering whether XYZ should be permitted to do certain municipal-regulated business in New York City. In return, Mr. Kerik received approximately $255,000 in renovations to his apartment in Riverdale.
Mr. Kerik moved to dismiss the honest services fraud on the ground that the alleged conduct – influence peddling where the public official was acting outside the context of his official duties – does not constitute honest services fraud. Mr. Kerik’s attorneys attempted to draw a “sharp distinction between the use, or even misuse, of the influence of office in activities falling outside a defendant’s official duties – which cannot support a prosecution for federal honest services fraud – and corruption in connection with the performance of a defendant’s official duties – which can.”
Holding
In a decision in May 2009, Judge Stephen Robinson acknowledged that the honest services fraud crime is “nebulous” and that the court was not the first to struggle with its scope. United States v. Kerik, 615 F. Supp. 2d 256, 263 (S.D.N.Y. 2009). In fact, the court admitted that it “desire[d] to cabin the breadth of section 1346.” Id. at 265. Nonetheless, the court determined that the indictment alleged that Kerik had used his office to vouch for XYZ Company and would not have been able to do so but for his official status. Quoting United States v. Bloom, a Seventh Circuit case, the court explained that, “misuse of office (more broadly, misuse of position) for private gain is the line that separates run of the mill violations of state-law fiduciary duty . . . from federal crime.” Although the case “teeter[ed] on the boundaries of 18 U.S.C. § 1346,” the Court concluded that the indictment charged a colorable allegation of honest services fraud.
On November 5, 2009, Bernie Kerik pled guilty to eight felonies, including charges of tax fraud relating to his acceptance of $255,000 of renovations from XYZ Company. As part of the plea agreement, the government dropped the charges that were based on honest services fraud. Thus, while Kerik’s plea led to his release for the holidays, his case will not lead to any further clarification of the honest services fraud theory.
Conclusion
In both Bruno and Kerik, the courts declined to limit the reach of the honest services theory of fraud. As the law currently stands in the Second Circuit, a state official may be convicted of depriving citizens of their intangible right of honest services even if the official is not acting within the scope of his or her duties and even if his or conduct is perfectly legal under state law. It remains to be seen whether the Supreme Court will come out differently in Weyhrauch.
In two recent cases involving former public officials – Joseph Bruno, the former majority leader of the New York State Senate, and Bernard Kerik, the former police commissioner of New York City – federal courts in New York declined to narrow the scope of the “honest services” theory of fraud. In United States v. Bruno, the court reaffirmed the principle that a state official may commit the federal crime of honest services fraud even if his conduct is legal under state law. In United States v. Kerik, the court ventured further by holding that a public official could commit the crime of honest services fraud by engaging in influence peddling even when the influence is directed at areas that are beyond the scope of the official’s authority. Both decisions highlight the difficulty many courts have had applying this vague and controversial statute, which Justice Scalia has described as “nothing more than an invitation for federal courts to develop a common-law crime of unethical conduct.” They also raise some of the same issues that are likely to be addressed by the Supreme Court this term in Weyhrauch v. United States.
Background on Honest Services Fraud
The honest services theory of fraud is codified in 18 U.S.C. § 1346. It provides that the federal statutes prohibiting mail and wire fraud extend to schemes that “deprive another of the intangible right of honest services.” Congress enacted section 1346 in 1988 in response to McNally v. United States, in which the Supreme Court ruled that the scope of the mail and wire fraud statutes was limited to the deprivation of tangible property rights. Since Congress’s abrogation of McNally through the adoption of section 1346, courts have struggled to define the honest services theory of fraud so that it applies to cases of clear corruption, such as those involving bribery and kickbacks, without applying to every instance of unethical or dishonest conduct.
United States v. Bruno
Facts
Joseph Bruno, the former Majority Leader of the New York State Senate, was charged with honest services fraud for failing to disclose conflicts of interest. The indictment alleged that Mr. Bruno had accepted employment that impaired his independent judgment, used his official position to secure unwarranted privileges and accepted unauthorized gifts. Mr. Bruno sought to dismiss the indictment on the grounds that the honest services statute is unconstitutionally vague both on its face and as applied. Mr. Bruno also argued that the charges violated principles of federalism because they served as a mechanism through which the federal government could regulate the ethical conduct of state officials. As part of his federalism argument, Mr. Bruno maintained that, as in other circuits, the government should be required to allege and prove an underlying state violation in order to charge a state official with honest services fraud. Finally, Mr. Bruno sought a stay pending the Supreme Court’s decision in Weyhrauch, where the Court is expected to address this very issue.
Holding
In a decision dated August 21, 2009, the court rejected all of Mr. Bruno’s arguments. United States v. Bruno, 2009 WL 2601249, No. 09 Cr. 29 (N.D.N.Y. Aug. 21, 2009). The court reaffirmed the pre-McNally rule announced in United States v. Margiotta, 688 F.2d 125 (2d Cir. 1982), that the government was not required to demonstrate a violation of a New York statute or a duty imposed by New York law in order to convict a state official of honest services fraud. The Court also held that the statute was neither unconstitutionally vague on its face nor as applied. Finally, noting that the law on these issues was “clear” in the Second Circuit and declining to speculate as to what the Supreme Court might do, the court refused to issue a stay.
Mr. Bruno’s trial is currently underway in the Northern District of New York.
United States v. Kerik
Facts
Bernard Kerik was charged with committing honest services fraud while he held the positions of Commissioner of the New York City Department of Corrections from 1998 through 2000 and New York City Police Commissioner from 2000 through 2002. The omnibus indictment also included charges, which are not relevant here, of tax fraud, mortgage fraud and making false statements to the federal government in connection with his nomination for the position of Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security.
The government alleged that Mr. Kerik used his influence as Commissioner of Corrections and subsequently as Police Commissioner, to “vouch” for XYZ Company, a construction company with ties to organized crime, in order to influence regulators and other public officials who were considering whether XYZ should be permitted to do certain municipal-regulated business in New York City. In return, Mr. Kerik received approximately $255,000 in renovations to his apartment in Riverdale.
Mr. Kerik moved to dismiss the honest services fraud on the ground that the alleged conduct – influence peddling where the public official was acting outside the context of his official duties – does not constitute honest services fraud. Mr. Kerik’s attorneys attempted to draw a “sharp distinction between the use, or even misuse, of the influence of office in activities falling outside a defendant’s official duties – which cannot support a prosecution for federal honest services fraud – and corruption in connection with the performance of a defendant’s official duties – which can.”
Holding
In a decision in May 2009, Judge Stephen Robinson acknowledged that the honest services fraud crime is “nebulous” and that the court was not the first to struggle with its scope. United States v. Kerik, 615 F. Supp. 2d 256, 263 (S.D.N.Y. 2009). In fact, the court admitted that it “desire[d] to cabin the breadth of section 1346.” Id. at 265. Nonetheless, the court determined that the indictment alleged that Kerik had used his office to vouch for XYZ Company and would not have been able to do so but for his official status. Quoting United States v. Bloom, a Seventh Circuit case, the court explained that, “misuse of office (more broadly, misuse of position) for private gain is the line that separates run of the mill violations of state-law fiduciary duty . . . from federal crime.” Although the case “teeter[ed] on the boundaries of 18 U.S.C. § 1346,” the Court concluded that the indictment charged a colorable allegation of honest services fraud.
On November 5, 2009, Bernie Kerik pled guilty to eight felonies, including charges of tax fraud relating to his acceptance of $255,000 of renovations from XYZ Company. As part of the plea agreement, the government dropped the charges that were based on honest services fraud. Thus, while Kerik’s plea led to his release for the holidays, his case will not lead to any further clarification of the honest services fraud theory.
Conclusion
In both Bruno and Kerik, the courts declined to limit the reach of the honest services theory of fraud. As the law currently stands in the Second Circuit, a state official may be convicted of depriving citizens of their intangible right of honest services even if the official is not acting within the scope of his or her duties and even if his or conduct is perfectly legal under state law. It remains to be seen whether the Supreme Court will come out differently in Weyhrauch.
A review of 2008 sentencing statistics reveals some fascinating facts: courts in the Eastern and Southern districts of New York impose non-government-sponsored below-Guidelines sentences in about a third of the cases (30% in the Eastern; 33% in the Southern) – well more than twice the equivalent departure rate nationally (13%) – but they incarcerate at a rate equal to their national counterparts. In fact, 87% of all federal offenders sentenced last year in New York’s busiest two districts were sent to prison.
In other words, as I noted on this blog two years ago, New York judges are flexing their post-Booker departure muscle to tinker with the machinery of incarceration-nation, but they are not dismantling it. Not surprisingly then, as Jay Hurst found out for us under FOIA, most of the federal prisons where New York’s sentenced offenders are serving their time, are seriously overcrowded. (e.g. Otisville FCI – Gen Pop is 57% overcapacity; Fort Dix FCI is 24% overcapacity; Lewisburg USP is 50% overcapacity; Schuykill FCI is 50% overcapacity).
But like the old joke about God sending several worldly rescue missions to the drowning man who later claimed God had abandoned him, appellate courts keep sending reminders to district judges that they do not need action from Congress or the Sentencing Commission before they can impose non-custodial sentences in most cases.
United States v. Rigas
The latest lifebelt is United States v. Rigas, 2009 WL 3166066 (2d Cir. October 5, 2009), in which the Court rejected defense arguments that the 17 and 12-year sentences imposed on Aldephia’s former executives for fraud were substantively unreasonable. (His lawyers pointed out that these sentences were only marginally shorter than some convicted terrorists.) Acknowledging that its previous definitions of “substantive unreasonableness” have given credence to an echo chamber, the Court held in Rigas that the concept is the same idea as that captured in the “manifestly unjust” standard or the “shock-the-conscience” standard – standards that “provide a backstop for those few cases that, although procedurally correct, would nonetheless damage the administration of justice because the sentence imposed was shockingly high, shockingly low, or otherwise unsupportable as a matter of law.” In other words, appellate review of the reasonableness of a sentence “necessarily places great trust in sentencing courts” and will “provide relief only in the proverbial ‘rare case.’” Or, I know it when I see it.
Comment
In case after case, the Supreme Court and the Second Circuit could not be clearer in their insistence on the centrality of the district judge’s sentencing discretion. Rigas is yet another shot of courage to judges who are dismayed by the appalling federal incarceration rate in this country. It also underlines the importance of defense counsel ensuring a procedurally sound hook for the judge’s hat at sentencing. And a reminder not to hold out too much hope if your appeal is based on the substantive unreasonableness of the sentence.
Lawyers: Stephen McAllister (Thompson Ramsdell & Qualseth); Lawrence, KS, Neal Katyal (Morgan Legal Consulting) Lawrence G. McMichael, (Dilworth Paxson, LLP) (defendants); AUSAs William Johnson, Katherine Polk Failla; Douglas Berman, Stephanos Bibas, Marc Miller, Michael O’Hear, Mark Osler, Sandra Guerra Thompson (Amicus Curiae)
In other words, as I noted on this blog two years ago, New York judges are flexing their post-Booker departure muscle to tinker with the machinery of incarceration-nation, but they are not dismantling it. Not surprisingly then, as Jay Hurst found out for us under FOIA, most of the federal prisons where New York’s sentenced offenders are serving their time, are seriously overcrowded. (e.g. Otisville FCI – Gen Pop is 57% overcapacity; Fort Dix FCI is 24% overcapacity; Lewisburg USP is 50% overcapacity; Schuykill FCI is 50% overcapacity).
But like the old joke about God sending several worldly rescue missions to the drowning man who later claimed God had abandoned him, appellate courts keep sending reminders to district judges that they do not need action from Congress or the Sentencing Commission before they can impose non-custodial sentences in most cases.
United States v. Rigas
The latest lifebelt is United States v. Rigas, 2009 WL 3166066 (2d Cir. October 5, 2009), in which the Court rejected defense arguments that the 17 and 12-year sentences imposed on Aldephia’s former executives for fraud were substantively unreasonable. (His lawyers pointed out that these sentences were only marginally shorter than some convicted terrorists.) Acknowledging that its previous definitions of “substantive unreasonableness” have given credence to an echo chamber, the Court held in Rigas that the concept is the same idea as that captured in the “manifestly unjust” standard or the “shock-the-conscience” standard – standards that “provide a backstop for those few cases that, although procedurally correct, would nonetheless damage the administration of justice because the sentence imposed was shockingly high, shockingly low, or otherwise unsupportable as a matter of law.” In other words, appellate review of the reasonableness of a sentence “necessarily places great trust in sentencing courts” and will “provide relief only in the proverbial ‘rare case.’” Or, I know it when I see it.
Comment
In case after case, the Supreme Court and the Second Circuit could not be clearer in their insistence on the centrality of the district judge’s sentencing discretion. Rigas is yet another shot of courage to judges who are dismayed by the appalling federal incarceration rate in this country. It also underlines the importance of defense counsel ensuring a procedurally sound hook for the judge’s hat at sentencing. And a reminder not to hold out too much hope if your appeal is based on the substantive unreasonableness of the sentence.
Lawyers: Stephen McAllister (Thompson Ramsdell & Qualseth); Lawrence, KS, Neal Katyal (Morgan Legal Consulting) Lawrence G. McMichael, (Dilworth Paxson, LLP) (defendants); AUSAs William Johnson, Katherine Polk Failla; Douglas Berman, Stephanos Bibas, Marc Miller, Michael O’Hear, Mark Osler, Sandra Guerra Thompson (Amicus Curiae)
Loss calculations in white collar cases are the critical driver of the (often huge) sentences in those cases. In United States v. Byors, 2009 WL 3461584 (2d Cir. October 29, 2009), the Second Circuit interpreted a Guidelines comment addressing permissible offsets when calculating the losses of a fraud scheme. The defendant argued that offsets should include expenditures he made to “capitalize” his business, which were “services rendered” to the victim-investors. Pointing out that the plain language of the Guidelines permits offsets only for value conferred on the victim in the form of money, property or services, the Court concluded that:
The case also held, as a matter of first impression in this Circuit, that obstructive conduct relating to an underlying fraud offense may be the basis of a guideline enhancement for money laundering.
Lawyers: Bradley Stetler (Stetler, Allen & Kampmann) (Defendant Byors); AUSAs Gregory Waples, Thomas Anderson, Paul Van de Graaf
Byors’s expenditures, legitimate or not, conferred nothing of value and no benefit on his victims, who were his investors and creditors. He rendered no “services” to them and failed to deliver any return on their “investment.” Accordingly, the District Court did not err in failing to treat defendant’s capitalization of his business as “services rendered” to his victims.
The case also held, as a matter of first impression in this Circuit, that obstructive conduct relating to an underlying fraud offense may be the basis of a guideline enhancement for money laundering.
Lawyers: Bradley Stetler (Stetler, Allen & Kampmann) (Defendant Byors); AUSAs Gregory Waples, Thomas Anderson, Paul Van de Graaf
Does a newspaper have a right of access to wiretap applications that led to the downfall of New York’s governor? SDNY Judge Rakoff had said yes (see here), but the Second Circuit disagreed in In the Matter of the Application of The New York Times Company to Unseal Wiretap & Search Warrant Materials, 2009 WL 2526486 (2d Cir., August 20, 2009) (Spitzer II). Presenting a stark contrast to Judge Rakoff’s pro-disclosure decision, the Court reversed his unsealing order, holding that the newspaper was not an “aggrieved person” in order to satisfy Title III’s “good cause” requirement for disclosure, and that it had no First Amendment right of access to the records. The case is an important (and unfortunately restrictive) one on the right of the press to scrutinize judicial documents, and thus judicial and prosecutorial processes. It is also an important precedent for those defendants who may want to shield some of the more salacious details of their alleged wrongdoing from public voyeurism.
Facts
In lines that beg a key chicken and egg question, the Court states: “In March 2008, the government charged four people with running a prostitution ring called the ‘Emperor’s Club.’ Soon after, the news media identified Governor Spitzer as a client of the ring; Spitzer resigned his office within days.” The New York Times sought access to the applications underlying wiretap surveillance in the case, which, may have revealed the origins and motivations behind this unusual federal probe of a high-end escort service involving consenting adults and personal money. SDNY Judge Rakoff granted the Times’ motion to unseal the applications, concluding that the Times had a common law First Amendment right of access to judicial records that was coextensive with Title III’s good cause requirement for disclosure. The government appealed, and Elliot Spitzer was permitted to file an amicus brief.
Title III’s Good Cause Requirement
Under Title III, wiretap applications may only be disclosed “upon a showing of good cause.” Neither the statute nor the Supreme Court have defined the term or who may invoke it, but in NBC v. DOJ, 735 F.2d 51 (2d Cir. 1984), a case where NBC sought wiretap applications to assist its defense in a libel action, the Court held that the applicant seeking to unseal wiretap applications must be an “aggrieved person.” It reached this conclusion in part based on a statement in Title III’s legislative history, which gave as an example of “good cause” an aggrieved person’s right to suppress wiretap contents. In Spitzer II, the Court saw no reason to depart from its analysis in the NBC case. “It is irrelevant for the purposes of Title III that the Times is a newspaper investigating a matter of public importance. Like NBC, the Times does not suggest, much less show, that it is an ‘aggrieved person’ within the express terms of the statute – that is, like NBC, the Times does not claim to be a ‘party to any intercepted wire or oral communication or a person against whom the interception was directed.’”
First Amendment Right of Access
There is a qualified First Amendment right of access to judicial records in two situations. One is the “history and logic” situation, where the records have been traditionally open to the press and public, and public access helps the functioning of the process in question. The other is where the documents have been filed in connection with a judicial proceeding that can be publicly attended. In Spitzer II, the Court concluded that neither situation applied here. Wiretap applications have not been historically open to the press and public since their inception in Title III, and “the Times does not present a good reason why its preferred public policy (‘logic’) – monitoring the government’s use of wiretaps and potential prosecutions of public officials – is more compelling than Congress’s concern for confidentiality and privacy.” As for the “attendance at proceedings” approach, the press and public are not allowed to attend the ex parte, in camera proceedings where wiretap applications are presented to a district judge, and therefore can have no corollory First Amendment right of access to the sealed applications.
Comment
This case sets a very high bar for media access to wiretap applications. It’s hard not to imagine a more compelling reason for public disclosure of the submissions to a judge in support of surveillance than a now closed investigation that led to the resignation of a state governor. While one can certainly empathize with Mr. Spitzer’s desire to put this humiliating episode behind him, media scrutiny is an important check on the exercise of prosecutorial power, especially the decisions to engage in the kind of highly intrusive surveillance at issue here. But if access to wiretap applications is limited to “aggrieved persons,” it puts the fox in charge of the proverbial henhouse. As the Court has acknowledged more than once, prosecutors’ bargaining power is “awesome.” While there is no indication that their bargaining power was in any way abused in this case, prosecutors nonetheless can use this power, along with their charging discretion, to silence all the people “aggrieved” by wiretapping.
Lawyers: David McCraw and Itai Maytal of The New York Times Company; AUSAs Daniel Stein and Jesse Furman; James Brochin, Marc Falcone and Michelle Hirshman of Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP (Elliot Spitzer)
Facts
In lines that beg a key chicken and egg question, the Court states: “In March 2008, the government charged four people with running a prostitution ring called the ‘Emperor’s Club.’ Soon after, the news media identified Governor Spitzer as a client of the ring; Spitzer resigned his office within days.” The New York Times sought access to the applications underlying wiretap surveillance in the case, which, may have revealed the origins and motivations behind this unusual federal probe of a high-end escort service involving consenting adults and personal money. SDNY Judge Rakoff granted the Times’ motion to unseal the applications, concluding that the Times had a common law First Amendment right of access to judicial records that was coextensive with Title III’s good cause requirement for disclosure. The government appealed, and Elliot Spitzer was permitted to file an amicus brief.
Title III’s Good Cause Requirement
Under Title III, wiretap applications may only be disclosed “upon a showing of good cause.” Neither the statute nor the Supreme Court have defined the term or who may invoke it, but in NBC v. DOJ, 735 F.2d 51 (2d Cir. 1984), a case where NBC sought wiretap applications to assist its defense in a libel action, the Court held that the applicant seeking to unseal wiretap applications must be an “aggrieved person.” It reached this conclusion in part based on a statement in Title III’s legislative history, which gave as an example of “good cause” an aggrieved person’s right to suppress wiretap contents. In Spitzer II, the Court saw no reason to depart from its analysis in the NBC case. “It is irrelevant for the purposes of Title III that the Times is a newspaper investigating a matter of public importance. Like NBC, the Times does not suggest, much less show, that it is an ‘aggrieved person’ within the express terms of the statute – that is, like NBC, the Times does not claim to be a ‘party to any intercepted wire or oral communication or a person against whom the interception was directed.’”
First Amendment Right of Access
There is a qualified First Amendment right of access to judicial records in two situations. One is the “history and logic” situation, where the records have been traditionally open to the press and public, and public access helps the functioning of the process in question. The other is where the documents have been filed in connection with a judicial proceeding that can be publicly attended. In Spitzer II, the Court concluded that neither situation applied here. Wiretap applications have not been historically open to the press and public since their inception in Title III, and “the Times does not present a good reason why its preferred public policy (‘logic’) – monitoring the government’s use of wiretaps and potential prosecutions of public officials – is more compelling than Congress’s concern for confidentiality and privacy.” As for the “attendance at proceedings” approach, the press and public are not allowed to attend the ex parte, in camera proceedings where wiretap applications are presented to a district judge, and therefore can have no corollory First Amendment right of access to the sealed applications.
Comment
This case sets a very high bar for media access to wiretap applications. It’s hard not to imagine a more compelling reason for public disclosure of the submissions to a judge in support of surveillance than a now closed investigation that led to the resignation of a state governor. While one can certainly empathize with Mr. Spitzer’s desire to put this humiliating episode behind him, media scrutiny is an important check on the exercise of prosecutorial power, especially the decisions to engage in the kind of highly intrusive surveillance at issue here. But if access to wiretap applications is limited to “aggrieved persons,” it puts the fox in charge of the proverbial henhouse. As the Court has acknowledged more than once, prosecutors’ bargaining power is “awesome.” While there is no indication that their bargaining power was in any way abused in this case, prosecutors nonetheless can use this power, along with their charging discretion, to silence all the people “aggrieved” by wiretapping.
Lawyers: David McCraw and Itai Maytal of The New York Times Company; AUSAs Daniel Stein and Jesse Furman; James Brochin, Marc Falcone and Michelle Hirshman of Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP (Elliot Spitzer)
In United States v. Ware, 2009 WL 2512321 (2d Cir. August 18, 2009), proving that you don’t always get what you pay for, a defendant convicted after trial of securities fraud, filed a pro se appeal, and - under plain error review, no less - won himself a remand so that the district court can either explain its reasons for applying a four-level leadership role enhancement to Ware's sentencing guideline range or resentence him.
The Leadership Role Enhancement
The Guidelines provide a four-level upward adjustment under §3B1.1(a) if the defendant was an organizer or leader of a criminal activity that involved five or more participants, or was otherwise extensive. A “participant” is defined as someone who is criminally responsible for the offense, and therefore cannot include participants who were unwitting or lacked criminal intent. A leadership enhancement based on the “otherwise extensive” prong does not require that the participants be criminally liable themselves, but could be premised on a finding of less than five actual participants and the use of the unknowing services of many outsiders. The district court must make specific findings as to why a role adjustment is made, and may not simply adopt the factual findings in the PSR, if those findings are inadequate.
Holding
Here, the Court held that the district court’s findings were not specific enough. There were only four obvious criminal participants in the scheme, and the Court refused to “endorse the role enhancement on the basis of the government’s speculation as to what the sentencing judge had in mind” or on the basis of unidentified participants where there was “no indication in the record that they could be criminally liable.” In addition, it was not clear why the district judge thought the criminal activity was “otherwise extensive.” This finding could not be based simply on the period of time spanned by the criminal activity, or the mere use of wire services, two factors mentioned by the district judge in imposing the leadership enhancement.
So, the Court remanded for the district court to supplement the record with findings as to why the criteria of a leadership role enhancement were met here, or, if not, for resentencing. I wonder if Mr. Ware will use the same ace lawyer he had on appeal....
Lawyers: Ulysses Thomas Ware (pro se); AUSAs Nicholas Goldin and Andrew Fish
The Leadership Role Enhancement
The Guidelines provide a four-level upward adjustment under §3B1.1(a) if the defendant was an organizer or leader of a criminal activity that involved five or more participants, or was otherwise extensive. A “participant” is defined as someone who is criminally responsible for the offense, and therefore cannot include participants who were unwitting or lacked criminal intent. A leadership enhancement based on the “otherwise extensive” prong does not require that the participants be criminally liable themselves, but could be premised on a finding of less than five actual participants and the use of the unknowing services of many outsiders. The district court must make specific findings as to why a role adjustment is made, and may not simply adopt the factual findings in the PSR, if those findings are inadequate.
Holding
Here, the Court held that the district court’s findings were not specific enough. There were only four obvious criminal participants in the scheme, and the Court refused to “endorse the role enhancement on the basis of the government’s speculation as to what the sentencing judge had in mind” or on the basis of unidentified participants where there was “no indication in the record that they could be criminally liable.” In addition, it was not clear why the district judge thought the criminal activity was “otherwise extensive.” This finding could not be based simply on the period of time spanned by the criminal activity, or the mere use of wire services, two factors mentioned by the district judge in imposing the leadership enhancement.
So, the Court remanded for the district court to supplement the record with findings as to why the criteria of a leadership role enhancement were met here, or, if not, for resentencing. I wonder if Mr. Ware will use the same ace lawyer he had on appeal....
Lawyers: Ulysses Thomas Ware (pro se); AUSAs Nicholas Goldin and Andrew Fish
Behind the convictions of criminal defense lawyers Robert Simels and Arienne Irving yesterday on charges of witness tampering and obstruction of justice is a profound question: should there be different rules for the prosecution of lawyers? The Simels prosecutors thought yes, and drafted a unique protocol for the minimization of communications intercepted under a Title III warrant. EDNY Judge Gleeson disagreed. In United States v. Simels, 2009 WL 1924746 (E.D.N.Y. July 2, 2009), he suppressed the fruits of the Title III surveillance because the protocol was internally inconsistent and improperly minimized dissemination rather than the initial interception. In addition to being a detailed primer on Title III minimization issues, especially in the context of privileged communications, the decision joins its companion, discussed here, as another important landmark in the small body of jurisprudence on how (and how not) to prosecute a lawyer for an act of lawyering.
Facts
As part of an investigation into allegations that defense attorneys Robert Simels and Arienne Irving were seeking to influence witnesses in the upcoming trial of their client Shaheed Kahn, the government obtained an order under Title III permitting it to intercept communications between Simels, Irving and Kahn, in the attorneys’ visiting rooms at MCC.
Because the targets included two lawyers, the order contained two minimization provisions, both proposed by the government. The first was a standard provision, requiring the monitoring agents “to minimize the interception of communications not otherwise subject to interception under [Title III], including . . . privileged communications.” The second directed the agents to record (without listening to) all communications between Simels or Irving and their client, and provided for after-the-fact minimization by “Wall Agents” and a “Wall AUSA.”
Two meetings were recorded under the order, and only the second minimization directive was followed (in other words, the meetings were recorded in their entirety and not contemporaneously monitored). Simels and Irving were later indicted on obstruction of justice and witness tampering charges, among others. They moved to suppress the fruits of the wiretap surveillance because of a failure to minimize.
Minimization Cannot Occur After the Horse Has Bolted
Granting the motion and suppressing the communications, Judge Gleeson found that the government’s minimization efforts here were unreasonable, and the post-interception minimization procedure violated Title III. For one thing, the two minimization provisions in the order were internally inconsistent. “By definition, an agent cannot minimize the interception of communications that should not be intercepted by intercepting all communications and sorting them out later.” Moreover, while Title III permits post-interception minimization in two circumstances (where the communications are in code or in a foreign language), neither applied here.
[T]he way to avoid intercepting privileged or nonpertinent communications (as opposed to merely avoiding the unlawful dissemination of communications that should never have been intercepted in the first place) is take reasonable steps not to intercept them. Automatically recording everything, even where that is followed by a post-interception minimization protocol, virtually guaranteed the interception of communications the government should not have seized. The post-interception minimization may have closed the barn door, but the horse was already gone . . . When the government deliberately intercepts nonpertinent communications, it is no comfort to those whose privacy has been invaded that only government actors not involved in a particular criminal investigation will be listening to them.
Privileged Communications Are Not Special
The prosecutors had taken pains to avoid disseminating privileged communications, but Judge Gleeson debunked the idea that privileged communications should not be intercepted in wiretaps. “Communications undoubtedly occur that are both pertinent to the crimes enumerated in an order issued pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2518 and privileged under some other body of law, and nothing in Title III prohibits the interception of such communications based on their privileged status.”
Good Faith Not a Defense
Although the court found that the prosecutors’ good faith was “indisputable,” that was not relevant to the outcome. Title III has its own statutory exclusionary rule, and Judge Gleeson found “no indication in the statute that good faith is relevant to the operation of this exclusionary rule.”
Comment
In developing their ill-fated protocol, the Simels prosecutors, to their credit, recognized the serious ramifications of bugging MCC’s attorney interview rooms. But from a defense perspective, if you’re challenging the fruits of such interceptions on minimization grounds, the horse has already bolted. What is far more interesting here is what led to the wiretap authorizations in the first place: several visits to Simels’ law office by a cooperating witness wearing a wire, who proceeded to discuss defense strategy in Khan’s case with Simels and Irving. Judge Gleeson had denied Simels’ concededly “novel” motion to suppress these consensual recordings and their fruits on the grounds that the government’s use of a wired cooperator in these circumstances was unconstitutional. But the motion begs the important question of whether there should be some formal rules requiring judicial supervision before wired cooperators are deployed into a law office. Bad lawyers do not deserve special treatment, but aggressive advocacy does, and that kind of advocacy may be chilled by the kinds of highly intrusive surveillance and investigative techniques employed in this case.
See Archives for all posts since September 2007.
