639 F.3d 718
6th Cir.2011Background
- Ford, a longtime Tennessee state senator, faced a second prosecution for nondisclosure of financial interests related to TennCare carve-out contracts with Omnicare and Doral; he did not disclose these interests to the Tennessee Senate or the Tennessee Registry of Election Finance.
- He received consulting payments from Omnicare and held an ownership interest in a consulting partnership with Doral-linked entities; these relationships were not disclosed until 2005.
- TennCare is federally funded via a Medicaid waiver, and Omnicare served as a TennCare contractor; Doral’s payments to Ford were routed through his consulting influence.
- The indictment charged four counts under 18 U.S.C. § 1001 for concealing material facts and two counts under 18 U.S.C. § 1343, 1346 for honest-services wire fraud.
- The district court convicted Ford on all counts, but on appeal the Sixth Circuit vacated the § 1001 convictions (lack of federal jurisdiction over the disclosures) and the honest-services wire fraud convictions (Skilling), reversing the district court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 1001 applies to Ford's disclosures | Ford argues disclosures owed to state entities fall outside federal jurisdiction. | Ford contends state duties to disclose are not matters within federal jurisdiction. | Vacated § 1001 convictions for lack of federal jurisdiction. |
| Effect of Skilling on Ford's honest-services convictions | The government concedes on § 1346 counts in light of Skilling. | Honest-services convictions were not based on bribery/kickbacks but on disclosure failures. | Vacated the honest-services wire fraud convictions. |
Key Cases Cited
- Holmes v. United States, 111 F.3d 463 (6th Cir. 1997) (jurisdiction under §1001 requires federal involvement in the specific matter)
- Gibson v. United States, 881 F.2d 318 (6th Cir. 1989) (authority to investigate under a federal contract connects §1001 jurisdiction)
- Rodgers v. United States, 466 U.S. 475 (1984) (limits §1001 jurisdiction to matters within federal authority)
- Facchini v. United States, 874 F.2d 638 (9th Cir. 1989) (en banc; aid in defining federal jurisdiction under §1001)
- Bryson v. United States, 396 U.S. 64 (1969) (concept of jurisdiction beyond narrow, technical meaning)
- Skilling v. United States, 130 S. Ct. 2896 (2010) (honest-services statute limited to bribery/kickbacks; governs vacatur of §1346 convictions)
- Santos v. United States, 553 U.S. 507 (2008) (applies Rule of Lenity to ambiguous criminal statutes)