United States v. Fraser Verrusio
412 U.S. App. D.C. 1
| D.C. Cir. | 2014Background
- Fraser Verrusio was policy director for the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure; United Rentals (via lobbyists at Abramoff’s group) sought three amendments to the 2003 federal highway bill to benefit United Rentals.
- United Rentals’ lobbyists (Boulanger and Hirni) and United Rentals’ executive Ehrlich invited Verrusio and Senate staffer Trevor Blackann to an all‑expenses‑paid New York trip (World Series game, hotel, meals, strip club). The trip cost to Verrusio totaled $1,259.77 and was paid by United Rentals.
- Prior to and during the trip, Verrusio discussed the company’s proposed amendments and a last‑minute “airmail” strategy with Blackann and the lobbyists; post‑trip communications showed continued lobbying and sharing of draft amendment language.
- Verrusio did not disclose the trip on his 2003 Financial Disclosure Statement (left Schedule VI blank despite indicating he had reportable gifts and did not list the trip on Schedule VII). He initially denied the trip to the FBI, later admitted the trip and that it was not an official trip.
- A grand jury indicted Verrusio for (1) conspiracy to receive illegal gratuities (18 U.S.C. § 371), (2) receiving illegal gratuities (18 U.S.C. § 201(c)), and (3) making a false statement on his financial disclosure form (18 U.S.C. § 1001). After trial, a jury convicted on all counts; Verrusio appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Verrusio) | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Indictment omitted "official act" element under §201(c) | Count Two failed to allege a specific "official act" and was thus defective under Sun‑Diamond | Indictment specifically alleged assistance in "influencing the language of the Federal Highway Bill," which satisfies Sun‑Diamond | Indictment was sufficient; it alleged a particular official act (influencing bill language) and survived dismissal |
| Sufficiency of evidence for gratuities/conspiracy | Evidence only showed social trip/goodwill or sharing public information; no link between trip and a specific official act or intent to perform such act | Testimony and circumstantial post‑trip conduct tied the trip to Verrusio’s assistance in securing amendments; jury could infer knowledge and intent | Evidence sufficient to support convictions on Counts One and Two (gratuities and conspiracy) |
| Sufficiency of evidence for false statement (§1001) | Trial proved at most that some expenses were travel (Schedule VII) not gifts (Schedule VI); omissions were immaterial | Schedule VI instructions (admitted) and witness testimony supported that trip was for personal benefit and should have been reported; omissions could naturally influence Ethics Committee | Evidence sufficient; false statement was material and conviction stands |
| Exclusion of Schedule VII instructions and quashing subpoena (Speech or Debate) | Excluding Schedule VII instructions and quashing defense subpoena (Moeglein) prejudiced defense and violated compulsory process | Schedule VI instructions were admitted; exclusion of VII instructions was harmless; Speech or Debate claimed protected witness and defendant waived argument; no proven material prejudice | No reversible error: exclusion harmless; subpoena quashed properly (no plain error and no material prejudice) |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Sun‑Diamond Growers, 526 U.S. 398 (1999) (gratuities statute requires link to some particular official act)
- Valdes v. United States, 475 F.3d 1319 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (definition of "official act" focuses on matters that can be brought before an official; mere release of information generally not an "official act")
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (standard for sufficiency of the evidence review)
- United States v. Ring, 706 F.3d 460 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (officials without final decisionmaking power can still perform "official acts" that influence outcomes)
- United States v. Brewster, 408 U.S. 501 (1972) (gratuities conviction requires knowledge that payment was made for an official act)