United States v. McDonnell
64 F. Supp. 3d 783
E.D. Va.2014Background
- Robert F. McDonnell, Governor of Virginia (2010–2014), and his wife were indicted; jury convicted him on Counts 1–11 for honest-services wire fraud and Hobbs Act extortion tied to benefits from Jonnie Williams / Star Scientific.
- Government’s theory: Williams provided gifts, loans, and other things of value to the McDonnells in exchange for McDonnell using his office to "legitimize, promote, and obtain research studies" for Star Scientific products (Anatabloc/CigRx).
- At trial the Government identified specific acts by McDonnell (meetings, emails, directives to staff) and evidence showing Williams asked McDonnell to facilitate Virginia-based studies.
- McDonnell moved for a new trial under Rule 33, raising four principal challenges: (1) erroneous jury instructions on the definition of "official act" and quid pro quo timing, (2) inadequate voir dire regarding prejudicial pretrial publicity, (3) failure to further investigate alleged juror misconduct/premature deliberations, and (4) improper admission of Rule 404(b) evidence (Goodwin gifts and an email about free golf).
- The district court denied the motion in full, finding the instructions consistent with Fourth Circuit precedent, voir dire and misconduct handling within the court’s discretion, and the challenged evidence admissible or harmless.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Government) | Defendant's Argument (McDonnell) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Jury instructions re: "official act" and quid pro quo | Instructions properly defined "official act," required quid pro quo, and paralleled Jefferson/Jennings framework; evidence supported a course-of-conduct quid pro quo. | Instructions were overbroad—"official act" and "settled practice" language criminalized routine courtesies and allowed conviction on vague/future promises. | Court upheld instructions as consistent with Fourth Circuit (Jefferson, Jennings); quid pro quo requirement preserved; no legal error. |
| 2. Voir dire adequacy re: pretrial publicity | Voir dire (99‑question questionnaire, panel questions, follow-up) reasonably assured impartiality; judge’s discretion controls. | Voir dire was insufficient given pervasive prejudicial publicity; needed individualized probing to uncover bias. | Court found voir dire procedures adequate under Rule 24 and Skilling/Lancaster precedent; no Sixth Amendment violation. |
| 3. Juror misconduct (premature deliberations) | Any indication of juror discussions required fuller inquiry and possible mistrial; DeNitto’s statements were colorable. | DeNitto’s statements did not establish premature deliberations; judge interviewed juror and third party, struck DeNitto, admonished jury, and had discretion not to expand inquiry. | Court exercised broad discretion; found no colorable evidence of prejudicial premature deliberations requiring further probing or mistrial. |
| 4. Admission of 404(b) and other evidence (Goodwin, Zubowsky email) | Evidence was relevant to intent, knowledge, absence of mistake, and rebutted testimony; admissible under Queen factors and impeachment/contradiction doctrines; email error harmless if hearsay. | Evidence impermissibly showed propensity and was prejudicial; hearsay and Rule 404(b) objections to the email were preserved. | Goodwin and golf-email evidence admissible under Rule 404(b)/impeachment principles and Queen factors; any hearsay error in the email was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Jennings, 160 F.3d 1006 (4th Cir. 1998) (quid pro quo requires intent to induce specific official action; court examined instruction deficiencies)
- United States v. Jefferson, 674 F.3d 332 (4th Cir. 2012) (approving "settled practice" instruction and course-of-conduct quid pro quo theory)
- Evans v. United States, 504 U.S. 255 (1992) (Hobbs Act bribery complete when public official obtains payment knowing it was given for official acts)
- Sun-Diamond Growers of California v. United States, 526 U.S. 398 (1999) (distinguishes illegal gratuity from bribery; requires link to particular official act for gratuities)
- Skilling v. United States, 561 U.S. 358 (2010) (pretrial publicity and voir dire discretion; juror impartiality does not require ignorance)
- Irvin v. Dowd, 366 U.S. 717 (1961) (juror impartiality standard; jurors need not be totally ignorant but must be able to set aside opinions)
- United States v. Rahman, 83 F.3d 89 (4th Cir. 1996) (instructions must be read as a whole)
- United States v. Queen, 132 F.3d 991 (4th Cir. 1997) (framework for admissibility of prior bad acts under Rule 404(b))