United States v. Hornsby
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 1333
| 4th Cir. | 2012Background
- Four-year federal probe into corruption within Prince George's County Public Schools (PGCS) led to Hornsby's convictions on honest-services fraud, tampering with evidence, and obstruction of justice.
- Two LeapFrog-related contracts were central; the LeapFrog contract involved purchasing educational products for PGCS classrooms, with authorship and disclosure at issue.
- Hornsby facilitated LeapFrog negotiations, exchanged emails through Owens (LeapFrog sales rep), and deleted references to Owens in communications to PGCS officials.
- A $10,000 gift from Owens to Hornsby was admitted as potential evidence of a concealed conflict; Hornsby also instructed witnesses to conceal or destroy related material.
- Post–publication of a Baltimore Sun article, federal investigators began probing; Hornsby attempted to suppress evidence, including instructing a witness to remove a computer from circulation.
- The case proceeded to a second trial where Hornsby was convicted on some counts and acquitted on others; the district court sentenced him to 72 months concurrent on several counts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the honest-services instruction error requires reversal | Hornsby challenged a conflict-of-interest theory based on Skilling. | Hornsby preserved error; instruction was plain-error impact neutralized by Skilling. | Convictions erased for honest-services fraud; remand on remaining counts. |
| Admissibility of 404(b) prior-conduct evidence for intent | 4(b) evidence probative of Hornsby's intent to tamper/obstruct. | The district court abused 404(b) by admitting prior acts. | Court upheld admission; proper limiting instruction and probative value outweighed prejudice. |
| Severance of tampering/obstruction from honest-services counts | Joinder caused substantial prejudice to Hornsby. | Joinder was proper due to related conduct. | No clear prejudice; severance not warranted. |
| Jury instruction on reasonable doubt | Detailed definition of reasonable doubt should have been given. | No need for extra definition beyond instruction that guilt must be proven beyond reasonable doubt. | No error; instruction adequate. |
| Prejudicial spillover from reversed counts | Reversed honest-services counts could taint remaining counts. | Evidence uniquely tied to the LeapFrog case; spillover minimal. | No prejudicial spillover; remaining convictions affirmed after reversal. |
Key Cases Cited
- Skilling v. United States, 561 U.S. 358 (Supreme Court 2010) (honest-services fraud scope limited to bribes/kickbacks; conflict-of-interest theory rejected)
- Hedgpeth v. Pulido, 555 U.S. 57 (Supreme Court 2008) (harmless-error review for instructional errors in multi-theory cases)
- United States v. Ebersole, 411 F.3d 517 (4th Cir. 2005) (preservation of instructional-error issues via Rule 29(a) motions)
- United States v. Riley, 621 F.3d 312 (3d Cir. 2010) (harmless-error review for multi-theory instructions)
- United States v. Siegel, 536 F.3d 306 (4th Cir. 2008) (admissibility of intrinsic evidence to complete the story in obstruction cases)