United States v. David Safavian
649 F.3d 688
D.C. Cir.2011Background
- Safavian convicted on Counts One, Two, Three, and Five; acquitted on Count Four.
- Second superseding indictment added Counts Three and Five; Count Five related to false statements to FBI, Count Three to the ethics disclosure.
- Defense sought to present literal-truth defense and expert testimony on meaning of 'doing business'; district court excluded expert, appellate remanded.
- Government argued Count Five was added to preserve admissibility of FBI statements and broaden trial strategy after Safavian II decision.
- Court affirmed district court’s decision on Counts One, Two, Three; and held Count Five valid, addressing vindictiveness under the presumption framework.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Materiality of Safavian’s FBI statements under §1001(a)(1) | Safavian argues statements were not material because agent knew they were false. | Safavian contends statements lacked materiality as they could not influence FBI actions. | Statements were material; need only have a natural tendency to influence, not actual influence. |
| Prosecutorial vindictiveness and presumptive analysis | Presumption of vindictiveness should apply due to adding Count Five after appeal. | District court erred in presuming vindictiveness; government offered objective justifications. | Presumption established but overcome by objective reasons; no clear error in either ruling. |
| Objectivity of government's reasons for adding Count Five | Reasons were pretextual or strategically motivated to counter literal-truth defense. | Reasons were objectively reasonable to counter defense and expand indictment. | Addition of Count Five objectively reasonable; not vindictive given trial-strategy adjustment. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Moore, 612 F.3d 698 (2d Cir. 2010) (materiality need not influence in fact; must have natural tendency to influence agency)
- United States v. Meyer, 810 F.2d 1242 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (presumption of vindictiveness and rebuttal framework)
- United States v. Gary, 291 F.3d 30 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (presumption analysis for prosecutorial vindictiveness; review for clear error)
- Alabama v. Smith, 490 U.S. 794 (1989) (quoting standard on presumption or vindictiveness context)
- Chaffin v. Stynchcombe, 412 U.S. 17 (1973) (general statement on vindictiveness and state actor motivation)