109 F.4th 1341
11th Cir.2024Background
- Jo Ann Macrina, former Commissioner of Atlanta's Department of Watershed Management, was charged with bribery and conspiracy for accepting cash and other benefits from a contractor, Lohrasb 'Jeff' Jafari, in connection with government contracts.
- Macrina influenced the contract selection process in ways that favored Jafari’s company, including reevaluating proposals and scoring his bid higher than others.
- After being terminated, Macrina reached out to the FBI to report possible corruption but made incriminating admissions about her own conduct during interviews, including accepting cash and perks from Jafari.
- Portions of a recorded FBI interview were played at trial over Macrina’s Rule 106 objection; the City of Atlanta's ethics code was also admitted into evidence despite her objection as to relevance and prejudice.
- Macrina was convicted at trial. She appealed, arguing error in evidentiary rulings and the refusal to give a proposed jury instruction distinguishing bribes from gratuities.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admission of only portions of interview recording | Rule 106 required full admission or additional parts for fairness | Rule 106 not triggered; opposing party failed to specify needed parts | No abuse of discretion; Macrina failed to specify portions |
| Admission of city ethics code | Irrelevant and overly prejudicial under Rule 403 | Relevant to show corrupt intent, not unduly prejudicial with instruction | No abuse of discretion; limiting instruction sufficed |
| Rejection of proposed jury instruction on bribery | Law prohibits only bribes, not gratuities post-act | Misstates law—post-act payments can still be bribes if earlier agreement | No abuse; instruction misstated law under Snyder |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Barton, 909 F.3d 1323 (11th Cir. 2018) (sets standard for abuse of discretion in evidentiary rulings)
- United States v. Tinoco, 304 F.3d 1088 (11th Cir. 2002) (standard for relevance and Rule 403 analysis)
- United States v. Stefan, 784 F.2d 1093 (11th Cir. 1986) (admissibility of ethics violations to show intent)
- Snyder v. United States, 144 S. Ct. 1947 (2024) (distinguishes bribes from gratuities under federal law)