United States v. Darren Reagan
725 F.3d 471
| 5th Cir. | 2013Background
- Appellants Hill, Lee, Farrington, and Reagan were four of fourteen defendants indicted on Sept. 27, 2007, in a wide-ranging public corruption case in Dallas involving bribery, extortion, and money laundering.
- Hill was a Dallas City Council member; Lee sat on the City Plan and Zoning Commission; Farrington acted as a consultant; Reagan led BSEAT and its development arm.
- The scheme involved two housing developers, Potashnik and Fisher, seeking financing, zoning clearance, and political support, with Farrington’s consulting payments routed through Farrington & Associates.
- Farrington’s payments were used to purchase cars for Hill and Lee and to fund other illicit transfers; non-profits were enlisted to channel funds.
- Potashnik and Fisher faced zoning/financing maneuvers, with Hill, Lee, Farrington, and Reagan interacting to influence CPC votes and approvals; some schemes targeted minority contracting and inflated or illicit fees.
- Trial began June 22, 2009, ran 47 days; jurors convicted Hill, Lee, Farrington on multiple bribery/extortion/honest services and money-laundering counts, while Reagan faced a mix of convictions and acquittals; sentences ranged from 108 to 216 months.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of Evidence for Bribery Counts | Hill argues no intent to be influenced by Potashnik’s payments. | Hill contends no federal nexus and mere bystander role. | Evidence supported intended influence; convictions affirmed. |
| Sufficiency of Evidence for Money Laundering Conspiracy | Lee, Hill, and Farrington challenge funds’ illicit origin. | Defendants claim funds not proceeds at time of deposits. | Sufficient evidence; conspiracy to launder proceeds proven. |
| Sufficiency of Evidence for Extortion (Hobbs Act) | Hill, Lee, Reagan claim lack of fear/official-right basis. | Actions caused Fisher fear of economic loss and were tied to official conduct. | Evidence showed fear-based and official-right extortion; convictions sustained. |
| Speedy Trial/Constitutional Right | Reagan asserts violation of speedy-trial rights. | Delay largely attributable to defense requests; waiver not explicit. | Constitutional claim waived for speedy-trial purposes; no prejudicial error shown. |
| Batson Challenge Waiver | Reagan challenges government’s use of peremptory strikes. | Parties reached record agreement to replace a juror; Reagan waived Batson challenge. | Batson challenge waived and unreviewable. |
Key Cases Cited
- Sabri v. United States, 541 U.S. 600 (2004) (no nexus requirement for §666 bribery prosecutions satisfied by conduct)
- Salinas v. United States, 522 U.S. 52 (1997) (bribery nexus not strictly required; lack of closer nexus not unconstitutional)
- Branch, 46 F.3d 440 (5th Cir. 1995) (effect of stipulations on government proof burden)
- Rashad, 687 F.3d 637 (5th Cir. 2012) (prosecutorial closing arguments; standard for plain-error review)
- Turner, 674 F.3d 420 (5th Cir. 2012) (limiting instruction curative effect in 404(b) contexts)