Ryan v. United States
2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 134912
N.D. Ill.2010Background
- George H. Ryan, Sr., former Illinois governor, was convicted in 2006 of RICO, mail fraud, making false statements to the FBI, and tax violations and is serving a 78‑month sentence.
- The Seventh Circuit affirmed most convictions; the Supreme Court denied certiorari; Skilling v. United States narrowed honest services to bribery/kickback cases in 2010.
- Ryan filed a §2255 petition August 31, 2010 seeking vacatur and bail pending resolution of the petition.
- The court evaluates after Skilling whether Ryan’s honest services mail fraud and RICO convictions remain viable, considering both bribery theory and pecuniary fraud theory.
- Evidence at trial included a ‘stream of benefits’ from Warner and Klein to Ryan in exchange for official acts such as contracts, leases, and access to information.
- The court applies harmless‑error review to challenged jury instructions and separately assesses evidence sufficiency and post‑Skilling admissibility.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Post‑Skilling, were the jury instructions error and harmless? | Ryan argues Bloom/COI and related instructions were invalid after Skilling. | Government contends errors are harmless or supported by bribery theory. | Some instructions were error but harmless under the standard. |
| Do the proofs support a bribery scheme under Skilling’s limits? | Ryan contends no bribery/kickback theory fits the evidence after Skilling. | Government shows stream‑of‑benefits conduct fits bribery theory and supports convictions. | Evidence supports bribery/stream‑of‑benefits theory; convictions survive. |
| Do Counts Two–Eight survive under pecuniary fraud alternative if honest services narrowed? | Ryan argues pecuniary fraud theory was not properly presented. | Government contends pecuniary fraud is an alternate basis and supported by the record. | Counts Two–Eight survive under both theories; pecuniary fraud supports convictions. |
| Was Ryan prejudiced by non‑bribery evidence admitted post‑Skilling? | Evidence not admissible post‑Skilling would prejudice the verdict. | Evidence was part of the scheme and not dispositive; harmless overall. | Admission deemed harmless; no reversible prejudice. |
Key Cases Cited
- Skilling v. United States, 130 S. Ct. 2896 (2010) (limits honest services to bribes/kickbacks; clarifies paradigmatic cases)
- McNally v. United States, 483 U.S. 350 (1987) (honest services theory unconstitutional; prompts pecuniary fraud focus)
- Messinger v. United States, 872 F.2d 217 (7th Cir. 1989) (single scheme analysis post‑McNally; intangible rights theory; surplusage)
- United States v. Warner, 498 F.3d 666 (7th Cir. 2007) (honest services analysis; stream of benefits; conflict‑of‑interest framing)
- United States v. Cantrell, 617 F.3d 919 (7th Cir. 2010) (upholds honest services under Skilling on kickback theory)
- United States v. Black, 625 F.3d 386 (7th Cir. 2010) (post‑Skilling review; alternative theories to sustain convictions)