United States v. Langford
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 16131
| 11th Cir. | 2011Background
- Langford, former Jefferson County Commissioner and Birmingham Mayor, was convicted on multiple counts including bribery, conspiracy, money laundering, mail and wire fraud, tax fraud, and criminal forfeiture.
- Indictment charged Langford with taking cash, clothing, and jewelry from Blount-Parrish via LaPierre in exchange for county contracts and financial deals worth millions.
- Blount and LaPierre pled guilty and testified; Langford contested venue, leading to a district court change from Birmingham to Tuscaloosa.
- Evidence showed Langford as President of the Jefferson County Commission selected Blount-Parrish to assist in bond deals and swaps, in exchange for gifts and cash.
- Gifts included thousands in jewelry and clothing; cash transfers were funneled through LaPierre via forged promissory notes; Langford did not disclose these to the public or IRS.
- District court admitted various forms of evidence (tax returns, banking records, SEC testimony segments) over defense objections; Langford appealed on sufficiency, evidentiary rulings, jury instructions, and venue denial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of mail and wire fraud evidence | Langford defrauded via honest services by concealment. | No misrepresentations; insufficient evidence to show use of mails/wires. | Evidence supported mail/wire fraud and honest services conspiracy. |
| Evidentiary rulings on tax returns and alleged gambling | Tax returns and gambling indicators are probative of fraud. | Redaction and admission errors prejudiced defense. | Rulings were within discretion; any errors were harmless. |
| Admission of NBC credit-card records as 404(b) acts | Records show bribe-related intent to retain county business. | Hearsay/credibility concerns; improper foundation. | Business-record foundation adequate; no reversible error. |
| Wharton's Rule and jury instructions on bribery | Conspiracy/Bribery charges valid; no need for quid pro quo specificity. | Should have required a specific quid pro quo and Wharton’s Rule dismissal. | No error; Bribery statute does not require a specific quid pro quo; Wharton's Rule not controlling. |
| Post-voir dire motion for a change of venue | Public prejudice warranted transfer. | No actual or presumed prejudice; Tuscaloosa venue appropriate. | No abuse of discretion; trial venue affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Ward, 486 F.3d 1212 (11th Cir. 2007) (elements of mail and wire fraud; honest services framework)
- United States v. Lopez-Lukis, 102 F.3d 1164 (11th Cir. 1997) (public official fiduciary duty; concealment of bribes as honest services fraud)
- United States v. deVegter, 198 F.3d 1324 (11th Cir. 1999) (public officials and the political contract; honest services concept)
- United States v. Waymer, 55 F.3d 564 (11th Cir. 1995) (non-disclosure as basis for honest services fraud)
- United States v. McNair, 605 F.3d 1152 (11th Cir. 2010) (quoting quid pro quo not required by § 666; conspiracy scope)
- Skilling v. United States, 130 S. Ct. 2896 (U.S. 2010) (limits of honest services; Bribery scope post-Skilling)