United States v. Boyland
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 12240
| 2d Cir. | 2017Background
- Defendant William F. Boyland Jr., a New York State Assemblyman, was convicted after a jury trial on 21 counts arising from schemes involving a carnival permit, a real‑estate redevelopment project, fraudulent travel vouchers, and diversion of nonprofit/state funds; he was sentenced principally to 168 months' imprisonment and ordered to forfeit and pay restitution.
- Government proof relied heavily on recorded meetings, emails/documents, undercover FBI agents, and testimony from Boyland’s chief of staff (who had pleaded guilty); the evidence showed Boyland solicited and received money while promising to secure governmental approvals, permits, grants, zoning changes, and contracts.
- Counts included Hobbs Act extortion (attempt and conspiracy), conspiracy to commit bribery/Travel Act violations, federal‑funds bribery under 18 U.S.C. § 666, honest‑services wire/mail fraud (including multiple § 1343 counts), voucher fraud, and mail‑fraud conspiracy.
- After trial but before appeal the Supreme Court decided McDonnell v. United States, narrowing the definition of “official act” for federal bribery/honest‑services prosecutions; Boyland argued the jury instructions were erroneous under McDonnell.
- The government conceded that the district court’s instructions on the 11 honest‑services wire‑fraud counts (Counts Five–Fifteen) were erroneous under McDonnell, but argued the errors do not warrant relief under the plain‑error standard; the court analyzed other counts for similar error and for prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Government) | Defendant's Argument (Boyland) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether jury instructions on honest‑services wire fraud (Counts 5–15) complied with McDonnell | Instructions were adequate or any error was not plain and did not prejudice outcome | Instructions were inconsistent with McDonnell’s narrower definition of “official act,” warranting reversal under plain‑error review | Court agreed instructions were erroneous under McDonnell but found plain‑error standard not met (no prejudice); affirmed convictions |
| Whether Hobbs Act extortion instructions (Counts 1,2,16,18) were flawed under McDonnell | Instructions did not require reversal because any error was not plain or prejudicial | Jury instructions were insufficiently guided by McDonnell and could conflate routine constituent contact with an “official act” | Court viewed Hobbs Act instructions as potentially flawed but held Boyland failed to show prejudice under plain‑error review |
| Whether § 666 bribery counts (Counts 4,17,19) required McDonnell’s “official act” analysis | § 666 is broader than § 201 and does not import McDonnell’s limiting test | McDonnell should narrow all quid‑pro‑quo/official‑act‑based charges including § 666 applications here | Court held McDonnell did not apply to § 666 counts and instructions were proper for those counts |
| Sufficiency/admission of other evidence and spillover prejudice (Counts 3,20,21 and overall) | Evidence was admissible and no prejudicial spillover occurred | Certain agent testimony and spillover from other counts prejudiced jury | Court rejected these claims and found no basis for reversal |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2355 (2016) (narrowed definition of “official act” for federal bribery/honest‑services prosecutions)
- United States v. Marcus, 560 U.S. 258 (2010) (plain‑error standard and requirements for Rule 52(b) relief)
- Olano v. United States, 507 U.S. 725 (1993) (framework for reviewing unpreserved errors)
- Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129 (2009) (plain‑error doctrine explanation)
- Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461 (1997) (criteria for correcting plain error)