United States v. Louis Willis
65 V.I. 489
| 3rd Cir. | 2016Background
- Louis Milton Willis served as Executive Director of the U.S. Virgin Islands Legislature and had delegated authority to administer and bind the Legislature on contracts during a major renovation project (circa 2009–2011).
- Three contractors (Marie, James, Williams) testified that they paid Willis cash, an air conditioner and installation labor, a $10,000 check described as a loan, and other kickbacks to secure continued work or payment; total alleged graft ~ $19,000 tied to > $300,000 in contracts.
- A Department of the Interior audit flagged fiscal-control deficiencies and sole-source contracts negotiated by Willis without competitive bidding.
- Willis was indicted under 18 U.S.C. § 666(a)(1)(B) (federal-programs bribery) and 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a) (Hobbs Act extortion); convicted on four counts and sentenced to five years imprisonment plus supervised release; he appeals.
- On appeal Willis challenged: (1) sufficiency of the indictment (alleging lack of quid pro quo), (2) sufficiency of evidence linking his conduct to federal funds and his status as an agent under § 666, (3) constitutional challenges (Tenth Amendment and Spending Clause), and (4) admission of prior-act evidence under Fed. R. Evid. 404(b).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (U.S.) | Defendant's Argument (Willis) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of indictment under § 666 (quid pro quo) | Indictment need only track statute; alleged facts show corrupt solicitation/acceptance tied to official acts | Indictment failed to allege an essential quid pro quo (specific exchange: value for official act) | Court: § 666 need not be read to require extra-textual element; even if quid pro quo required, indictment alleged it (cash/AC in exchange for favorable treatment) — denial affirmed |
| Sufficiency of evidence linking conduct to federal funds and status as agent under § 666 | Evidence showed Legislature is part of territorial government that received >$10,000 federal funds; Willis had authority to contract => agent; federal benefit present | Legislature allegedly funded from segregated local fund; Willis not sufficiently an agent tied to federal funds; no nexus to federal "benefit" | Court: Legislature is part of the Government of the Virgin Islands (receiving $150M/year); Willis was an agent with contracting authority; evidence satisfied § 666 jurisdictional elements — judgment of acquittal denied |
| Constitutional challenges (Tenth Amendment / Spending Clause) | Application of § 666 is a valid exercise of Spending Clause and necessary/proper; Tenth Amendment not applicable to territory | Application transforms § 666 into a general police power and exceeds congressional spending power; Tenth Amendment protects states | Court: Tenth Amendment does not extend to territory; Sabri and related precedent uphold § 666 under Spending Clause — challenges rejected |
| Admission of prior-act evidence under Rule 404(b) | Prior bribery evidence admissible to prove intent, knowledge, absence of mistake; limiting instruction given | Prior-act evidence unduly prejudicial and improper propensity use | Court: Admission proper under Huddleston test; evidence probative of intent/knowledge and limiting instruction provided — no abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Salinas v. United States, 522 U.S. 52 (1997) (§ 666 construed broadly; no extra-textual nexus requirement)
- Sabri v. United States, 541 U.S. 600 (2004) (upheld § 666 as necessary/proper under Spending Clause; no strict traceability to specific federal payments required)
- Fischer v. United States, 529 U.S. 667 (2000) (benefit under § 666 can be indirect; statute construed expansively)
- Huddleston v. United States, 485 U.S. 681 (1988) (standards for admitting prior-act evidence under Rule 404(b))
- United States v. Fernandez, 722 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2013) (territorial legislature is part of government for § 666 coverage)
- United States v. McNair, 605 F.3d 1152 (11th Cir. 2010) (discussing whether § 666 requires quid pro quo)