Cecil Turner v. United States
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 18700
| 7th Cir. | 2012Background
- Turner was convicted on four counts of wire fraud and two counts of making false statements to the FBI based on a scheme to defraud Illinois of unearned janitorial salaries.
- The wire-fraud counts were submitted on two theories: aiding and abetting pecuniary fraud and aiding and abetting honest-services fraud.
- After the Supreme Court’s Skilling decision limiting honest-services fraud to bribes or kickbacks, Turner moved to vacate the wire-fraud convictions on collateral review.
- The district court vacated the wire-fraud convictions, and the government appealed seeking reinstatement.
- The core evidence showed a scheme where janitorial staff were paid full salaries while working very little, with cover-ups and manipulated logs.
- The panel held that the honest-services theory was coextensive with pecuniary fraud and not necessary to Turner’s conviction, making the Skilling error potentially harmless.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Skilling error is harmless on collateral review | Turner argues the error is harmless because evidence supported both theories. | State/Turner argues it is harmless as evidence was coextensive; but the government contends it merited reversal. | Harmless; wire-fraud convictions reinstated. |
| Whether the government’s procedural default should be excused | Turner contends cause and prejudice excuse default due to futile Bloom framework. | Government argues for excusal based on court discretion to overlook forfeiture in collateral review. | Discretion exercised to proceed to merits; default excused on extraordinary grounds. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Segal, 644 F.3d 364 (7th Cir. 2011) (harmless-error analysis for Skilling-type issues; coextensive theories)
- United States v. Black, 625 F.3d 386 (7th Cir. 2010) (coextensive proof on multiple theories supports harmless error)
- United States v. Colvin, 353 F.3d 569 (7th Cir. 2003) (en banc; all-or-nothing proposition when multiple theories implicated)
- Reed v. Farley, 512 U.S. 339 (U.S. 1994) (cause and prejudice to excuse procedural default)
- Yates v. United States, 354 U.S. 298 (U.S. 1957) (harmless-error analysis applied to Yates-type errors)
- Ryan v. United States, 645 F.3d 913 (7th Cir. 2011) (discretion to overlook forfeiture on collateral review; cause analysis)
- Bloom v. United States, 149 F.3d 649 (7th Cir. 1998) (causation/forfeiture arguments regarding honest-services challenge)
- Skilling v. United States, 130 S. Ct. 2896 (S. Ct. 2010) (limits honest-services fraud to bribes or kickbacks; retroactivity on collateral review)