United States v. Bohuchot
2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 23254
| 5th Cir. | 2010Background
- Bohuchot, DISD's chief technology officer, and Wong, president/co-owner of MSE, were charged in a multi-count indictment tied to DISD computer contracts.
- Two contracts—Seats Management (about $18M) and E-Rate (over $115M contemplated)—centered the bribery/conspiracy allegations; MSE received substantial payments.
- Indictment alleged Bohuchot provided non-public information and Wong paid for it; Bohuchot allegedly shared an RFP draft with Wong before public release.
- Evidence showed extensive benefits to Bohuchot (yachts, trips, employment for in-laws, tickets) in exchange for inside information over roughly a year.
- Jury convicted both defendants of bribery-conspiracy and money laundering conspiracy; Bohuchot additionally convicted of obstruction and tax-fraud-based offenses, with sentences of 132 and 120 months respectively.
- On appeal, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the convictions and sentences, addressing constructively amended indictment, sufficiency of evidence, prosecutorial comments, mens rea in money laundering, and sentencing calculations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the indictment was constructively amended | Wong and Bohuchot contend new theories emerged at trial beyond indictment. | Indictment insufficient to cover trial theories; trial drifted from charged theory. | There was potential constructive amendment, but no reversible error; substantial evidence supported guilt. |
| Sufficiency of evidence for bribery theory | Evidence supports bribery/conspiracy under § 666. | Insufficient direct evidence linking to bids; reliance on circumstantial proof. | Evidence was sufficient; rational juror could find guilt beyond reasonable doubt. |
| Prosecutor's comment on defendant's failure to testify | Comments were within closing and context; not improper. | Comments impermissibly highlighted silence. | Any error was not plain error and did not affect substantial rights. |
| Money laundering conspiracy mens rea in jury instruction | Indictment mens rea aligned; instruction properly stated elements. | Instruction lowered mens rea from intentional to knowing. | Assuming error, it was harmless; substantial evidence supported the conspiracy finding. |
| Sentencing value of yachts and multiple bribes | District court properly valued bribes and found multiple bribes for 2C1.1(b)(1). | Overstated value; ownership issue; improper aggregation of bribes. | Use of yacht value was harmless; court did not err in applying enhancements or counting multiple bribes. |
Key Cases Cited
- Stirone v. United States, 361 U.S. 212 (U.S. Supreme Court 1960) (indictment must align with proof and charge; no extrinsic theory)
- United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (U.S. Supreme Court 1993) (plain-error review framework for unpreserved errors)
- Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1 (U.S. Supreme Court 1999) (harmless-error standard for omitted/misdescribed elements)
- Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (U.S. Supreme Court 1967) (harmless-error review standard for trial errors)
- United States v. Griffin, 324 F.3d 330 (5th Cir. 2003) (evidentiary harmlessness and standards for reviewing trial errors)