United States v. Lynch
2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 101082
E.D. Pa.2011Background
- Lynch and Campenella pled guilty to conspiracy to commit honest services fraud based on an undisclosed conflict of interest arising from Campenella’s payments to Lynch.
- Judge Giles sentenced Lynch to three years probation and a $25,000 fine; Campenella received five years probation and a $250,000 fine.
- Defendants contend Skilling narrowed honest services fraud to a bribery/kickbacks core and undisclosed conflicts alone are not criminal.
- Factual basis for the Information includes (1) requests to lower assessed values of multiple properties, (2) efforts to delete tax delinquencies, (3) another assessment-lowering request, (4) Campenella’s $20,000 cash payment to Lynch, (5) later efforts to resolve related lawsuits.
- Lynch claimed he was not influenced by the money and did not know the envelope contained cash; Campenella claimed the payment was a gratuity for past help, not to influence future actions.
- Court held Lynch’s and Campenella’s current claims are procedurally defaulted but substantive merits show the conduct charged is no longer a crime, warranting collateral relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was bribery theory properly charged in the Information? | Government contends the Information includes bribery-based language to support a bribery theory. | Information only charged undisclosed-conflict-of-interest; no explicit bribery theory. | Information did not adequately charge a bribery theory. |
| Are defendants’ claims procedurally defaulted and governed by Bousley in coram nobis context? | Lynch argues coram nobis is not bound by Bousley default rules. | Court should apply Bousley procedural-default rules to coram nobis. | Claims are procedurally defaulted; coram nobis relief still available on merits. |
| Does actual innocence need to be shown when the relevant theory was not charged? | Actual innocence of any viable theory should be shown. | May need innocence of any viable theory even if uncharged. | Actual innocence not required for uncharged theory; relief granted on merits. |
| Does coram nobis relief lie where the charged conduct is no longer criminal after Skilling? | Undisclosed-conflict-based honest services fraud remains, or at least could be recharacterized. | Conduct is not criminal post-Skilling; coram nobis appropriate to correct fundamental error. | Lynch granted writ of error coram nobis; Campenella granted § 2255 relief. |
| What is the proper disposition when a defendant’s conviction is for conduct now deemed non-criminal? | Remedy may vary between coram nobis and § 2255 relief. | Vacatur of conviction and relief appropriate. | Lynch: writ of coram nobis granted; Campenella: § 2255 relief granted. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bousley v. United States, 523 U.S. 614 (1998) (procedural default and actual innocence limits on collateral review)
- Frady, 456 U.S. 152 (1982) (stiff standards for collateral relief; finality and innocence)
- Stoneman, 870 F.2d 102 (3d Cir. 1989) (coram nobis standard more stringent than §2255)
- Panarella, 277 F.3d 678 (3d Cir. 2002) (undisclosed-conflict theory in Panarella; pleading sufficiency)
- Kemp, 500 F.3d 257 (3d Cir. 2007) (bribery requires an exchange; need explicit quid pro quo)
- Vitillo, 490 F.3d 314 (3d Cir. 2007) (indictment sufficiency standards for fraud offenses)
- Rankin, 870 F.2d 109 (3d Cir. 1989) (indictment-like sufficiency standard for charging fraud)
- Davis, 417 U.S. 333 (1974) (fundamental miscarriage of justice when law not criminal)
- Mandel, 862 F.2d 1067 (4th Cir. 1988) (actual innocence context for collateral relief)