United States v. Eugene Mullins
800 F.3d 866
7th Cir.2015Background
- Mullins, Cook County Director of Public Affairs (from 2008), was indicted and convicted on four counts of wire fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1343) and four counts of bribery (18 U.S.C. § 666) for arranging service contracts and receiving cash kickbacks totaling $34,748.
- County procedure: contracts ≥ $25,000 required Board approval; contracts < $25,000 required only the purchasing agent. Prosecutors alleged Mullins manipulated amounts and paperwork to keep awards below the Board threshold.
- Vendors (co-defendants) testified that Mullins drafted/altered invoices and justification letters, arranged prepayment before work was done, and required cash payments labeled as payments to "subcontractors." Several vendors admitted receiving deferred-prosecution deals in exchange for testimony.
- Defense evidence: county employee testimony that prepayment was permitted (though not the norm); Mullins denied drafting contracts and claimed he only recommended vendors or assisted with proposals.
- Jury convicted on nearly all counts; district court sentenced Mullins to 51 months. On appeal Mullins challenged sufficiency of evidence and alleged prosecutorial misconduct (suborning perjury, witness intimidation, improper closing statements).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for wire fraud | Government: Mullins schemed to defraud by manipulating invoices/proposals, arranging prepayments, and using interstate wires | Mullins: he only expedited contracts, did not draft/approve them, followed county rules | Affirmed — evidence viewed favorably to verdict showed active participation and intent to defraud |
| Sufficiency of evidence for bribery (§ 666) | Government: Mullins solicited/received cash kickbacks in connection with ≥$5,000 transactions; acted corruptly | Mullins: other departments approved work; no corrupt intent or quid pro quo | Affirmed — jurors could infer corrupt solicitation; quid pro quo not required under § 666(a)(1)(B) |
| Subornation of perjury / eliciting false testimony | Government: testimony from witnesses (e.g., Goldsmith, Borner) was truthful or properly elicited/clarified | Mullins: prosecutor elicited/permitted perjured testimony by witnesses | Rejected — lay opinion on handwriting permissible; redirect clarified prior inconsistencies; no evidence prosecutor knowingly used perjury |
| Witness intimidation / improper closing argument | Government: prosecutor's closing misstated one witness but corrected and judge gave curative instruction | Mullins: agent intimidated witness Peery; prosecutor misstated testimony about prepayment practice | Rejected — no evidence of coercive threats; misstatement promptly objected to, cured by judge and corrected; weight of evidence strong |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Sheneman, 682 F.3d 623 (7th Cir. 2012) (defines elements and sufficiency standard for wire-fraud participation)
- United States v. Howard, 619 F.3d 723 (7th Cir. 2010) (fraud scheme requires a willful act to deceive or cheat causing financial loss)
- United States v. Robinson, 663 F.3d 265 (7th Cir. 2011) (interpretation of bribery under § 666)
- United States v. Hawkins, 777 F.3d 880 (7th Cir. 2015) (explains when an agent acts "corruptly" under § 666)
- United States v. Boender, 649 F.3d 650 (7th Cir. 2011) (clarifies that explicit quid pro quo is not necessary for § 666 convictions)
- United States v. Tipton, 964 F.2d 650 (7th Cir. 1992) (lay witnesses may give handwriting or other opinion testimony)
- United States v. Guadagno, 970 F.2d 214 (7th Cir. 1992) (permitting redirect clarification of earlier testimony)
- United States v. Wolfe, 701 F.3d 1206 (7th Cir. 2012) (prosecutorial misstatements in closing can be improper but often harmless when cured)