United States v. Medford
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 22512
4th Cir.2011Background
- Medford, former Buncombe County Sheriff, was convicted on conspiracy and related charges tied to bribes for video poker machine regulation under North Carolina's 2000 statute.
- The 2000 law allowed up to three machines per store, prohibited cash payouts, and required machine registration with the sheriff's office; a machine could pay up to eight replays or merchandise up to $10.
- Medford delegated machine registration to Harrison, with Penland and later Davis assisting; Medford left office in December 2006 after losing re-election.
- Evidence showed co-conspirators accepted cash payments from operators and store owners; Medford allegedly approved registrations and machine placements in exchange for bribes.
- Henderson Amusement registered many machines and paid bribes; Pennington, an employee, helped place machines and paid commissions; Henderson's reports showed Medford received about $32,000.
- Indicted with others on counts including Hobbs Act conspiracy, mail fraud, money laundering conspiracy, and illegal gambling conspiracy; Medford and Penland were tried together.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of December 19 recording | Recording shows co-conspirators in Buncombe/related scheme. | Recording involves Rutherford County conspiracy after Medford left office; not co-conspirator statement. | Harmless error; overwhelming other evidence supports conviction. |
| Severance for co-defendant's trial | Severance necessary to allow exculpatory statements from Penland. | Joint trial prejudiced Medford; severance should be granted. | District court did not abuse discretion; Parodi factors not satisfied. |
| Hobbs Act conspiracy sufficiency | Conspiracy involved obtaining property from others by extortion under color of official right. | All extorted parties were co-conspirators; requires outsider victim. | Evidence sufficient; operators/store owners were not required co-conspirators for Hobbs Act conspiracy. |
| Judicial bias and fair trial | Court biased against defense; improperly constrained defense. | Trial was unfair due to court's conduct. | No reversible judicial bias; trial viewed as fair overall. |
| Vagueness of Honest Services Fraud (1346) as applied | Statute not vague; crystal on bribery/kickback scheme charges. | Statute unconstitutionally vague per Scalia view. | Skilling majority controls; statute not unconstitutionally vague for bribery/kickback context. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cooper v. Taylor, 103 F.3d 366 (4th Cir.1996) (harmless-error framework for trial rulings)
- United States v. Murray, 65 F.3d 1161 (4th Cir.1995) (abuse-of-discretion review for evidentiary rulings)
- United States v. Weaver, 282 F.3d 302 (4th Cir.2002) (nonbinding considerations on evidentiary impact)
- United States v. Rusher, 966 F.2d 868 (4th Cir.1992) (presumption in favor of joint trials; factors for severance)
- United States v. Brooks, 957 F.2d 1138 (4th Cir.1992) (joint trials preferred in multi-defendant cases)
- United States v. West, 877 F.2d 281 (4th Cir.1989) (four-factor test for severance in conspiracy cases)
- United States v. Ayala, 601 F.3d 256 (4th Cir.2010) (elements for admission of co-conspirator statements under Rule 801(d)(2)(E))
- Parodi v. United States, 703 F.2d 768 (4th Cir.1983) (four-factor test for severance based on co-defendant testimony)
- Skilling v. United States, 130 S. Ct. 2896 (2010) (majority held Honest Services not vague for bribery/kickback)
- Muth v. United States, 1 F.3d 246 (4th Cir.1993) (plain-error review for issues raised first on appeal)
- United States v. Parodi, 703 F.2d 768 (4th Cir.1983) (articulated four-factor severance standard)