Robin L. Williams, John Duncan Fordham v. United States
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 2281
| 11th Cir. | 2013Background
- Fordham and Williams were indicted in a 30-count indictment alleging a conspiracy to defraud a federally funded health care program and related offenses.
- They were convicted on May 5, 2005 after an eight-day jury trial; Fordham on one health care fraud count and Williams on conspiracy, multiple health care fraud, theft, money laundering and bribery counts.
- After direct appeal, Skilling v. United States narrowed honest-services fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1346, but did not remove bribery as a theory for honest-services fraud under § 1346.
- Fordham and Williams later filed 28 U.S.C. § 2255 petitions arguing Skilling invalidated their convictions; the District Court dismissed as procedurally defaulted and denied merits.
- The district court granted a certificate of appealability on the procedural-default issue, and the appeals were consolidated for review.
- The court reviews de novo the district court’s habeas decision and de novo on the question of procedural default; factual findings are reviewed for clear error.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether procedural default is excusable under cause and prejudice. | Fordham/Williams argue cause and prejudice due to Skilling’s narrowing of the statute. | Fordham/Williams contend the default should be excused because the error affected the trial. | No; neither petitioner showed actual prejudice to excuse default. |
| Whether procedural default is excusable under actual innocence. | Fordham/Williams assert actual innocence given Skilling limits. | They argue innocence on the basis that the conviction relied on bribery theory intact after Skilling. | No; they failed to show actual innocence for the theories supporting their convictions. |
| Whether Skilling affected the validity of the convictions under the honest-services theory. | Skilling narrows honest-services, potentially invalidating parts of the convictions. | Convictions rested on bribery, not undisclosed self-dealing, so Skilling did not undermine them. | Convictions could be maintained; bribery theories remained valid post-Skilling. |
Key Cases Cited
- McNair v. Campbell, 416 F.3d 1291 (11th Cir. 2005) (standard for reviewing habeas determinations)
- Judd v. Haley, 250 F.3d 1308 (11th Cir. 2001) (mixed questions of law and fact for procedural default)
- Frady v. United States, 456 U.S. 152 (1982) (cause and prejudice requirement for procedural default)
- Bousley v. United States, 523 U.S. 614 (1998) (actual innocence exception to procedural default)
- Ward v. Hall, 592 F.3d 1144 (11th Cir. 2010) (definition of actual prejudice in habeas context)
- Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1 (1999) (harmless-error standard for constitutional errors)
- Hedgpeth v. Pulido, 555 U.S. 57 (2008) (per curiam harmlessness in certain contexts)
- Lomelo v. United States, 891 F.2d 1512 (11th Cir. 1990) (factual basis for reasonable conviction when an invalid theory is present)
- Skilling v. United States, 130 S. Ct. 2896 (2010) (limiting interpretation of honest-services fraud; § 1346 remains valid for bribery)
- United States v. Skilling, 638 F.3d 480 (5th Cir. 2011) (harmless error analysis on remand after Skilling)