United States v. Garrido
713 F.3d 985
| 9th Cir. | 2013Background
- Robles and Garrido were convicted after trial of honest services fraud, money laundering, and bribery related to South Gate contracts; Skilling narrowed §1346 to bribery/kickbacks and rejected undisclosed-conflict theories; the court must decide whether convictions rest on valid bribery/kickback theories or unconstitutional undisclosed-conflict theories; the §666 bribery convictions survive; §1957 money laundering convictions depend on valid §1346 convictions; the appeal challenges jury instructions and closing arguments emphasizing undisclosed conflicts over bribery/kickbacks; the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Skilling require §1346 honest services fraud to be based only on bribery or kickbacks? | Robles | Garrido | Yes; §1346 may only support bribery/kickback theory post-Skilling. |
| Were Robles' and Garrido's honest services convictions based on an unconstitutional failure-to-disclose theory? | Robles and Garrido | Government | Yes; plain error due to instructions allowing undisclosed-conflict theory. |
| Are Robles’ Count 16 and Counts 22 and 27 (and related Counts for Garrido) sustainable post-Skilling? | Robles | Government | No; convictions based on failure to disclose conflicts are reversed; counts dismissed or acquitted. |
| Do Robles’s §666 bribery convictions withstand the lack of a required quid pro quo for an official act? | Robles | Garrido | Yes; §666 does not require a specific quid pro quo or an official act. |
Key Cases Cited
- Skilling v. United States, 561 U.S. 374 (U.S. 2010) (limits §1346 to bribery/kickbacks; invalidates undisclosed-conflict theory)
- Kincaid-Chauncey, 556 F.3d 923 (9th Cir. 2009) (two theories of honest services fraud: bribery/kickbacks and undisclosed conflicts)
- Sun-Diamond Growers of California, 526 U.S. 398 (U.S. 1999) (official-act concept not required for §201 bribery; informs comparison to §666)
- McNair, 605 F.3d 1152 (11th Cir. 2010) (§666 bribery does not require a specific quid pro quo; corrupt intent interpretation)
- Abbey, 560 F.3d 513 (6th Cir. 2009) (no strict quid pro quo requirement for §666; discusses official-act concept)