United States v. Messenger
Criminal No. 2024-0265
| D.D.C. | Apr 3, 2025Background
- Defendants Robert P. Burke, Yongchul “Charlie” Kim, and Meghan Messenger are charged with crimes stemming from an alleged bribery scheme involving Burke, then a U.S. Navy Admiral, and Company A (owned by Kim and Messenger).
- Burke is charged with Conspiracy, Bribery, Acts Affecting a Personal Financial Interest, and Concealment of Material Facts; Kim and Messenger face Conspiracy and Bribery charges.
- Allegations center on Burke using his official position to aid Company A in securing government contracts in exchange for a promise of post-retirement employment and stock options.
- Defendants moved to strike Paragraph 45 of the indictment as irrelevant and prejudicial surplusage, and Burke separately moved to dismiss all charges against him.
- The challenged indictment language details specific acts by Burke that purportedly furthered the conspiracy and supported other charges, though not directly tied to the bribery count.
- The motions are decided pretrial, at the indictment stage, with no findings of fact but an assessment of the sufficiency and relevance of the allegations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Motion to Strike Surplusage | Paragraph 45 is not surplusage, as it is relevant. | Paragraph 45 describes acts not constituting “official acts”; irrelevant and prejudicial. | Paragraph 45 is relevant and should not be stricken. |
| Sufficiency of Bribery Charge | Burke’s acts fit the statutory definition; authority not required. | Burke lacked authority to make official contract decisions; no “official act.” | A jury could find the acts constitute official action; motion denied. |
| Sufficiency of Remaining Counts | Indictment adequately alleges all elements of crimes charged. | Indictment lacks specific facts for conspiracy, conflict, and concealment counts. | Indictment is sufficient; motion denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Oakar, 111 F.3d 146 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (scope of court’s discretion to strike surplusage from indictment is narrow)
- United States v. Rezaq, 134 F.3d 1121 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (material in an indictment should only be stricken if clearly irrelevant and prejudicial)
- United States v. Jordan, 626 F.2d 928 (D.C. Cir. 1980) (standard for striking surplusage is strictly construed)
- McDonnell v. United States, 579 U.S. 550 (2016) (definition of “official act” under federal bribery statute)
- Wilson v. United States, 230 F.2d 521 (4th Cir. 1956) (public official does not need final decision authority for bribery charge)