United States v. Michael Gabor
750 F.3d 619
| 6th Cir. | 2014Background
- Dimora, a Cuyahoga County commissioner, and Gabor, a weights-and-measures official, were convicted after a 37-day trial of multiple federal corruption offenses.
- Evidence showed quid pro quo arrangements: trips to Las Vegas, cash, home improvements, and other favors in exchange for official actions and county contracts.
- Key witnesses included Russo (county auditor and kingpin), Zavarella (contractor), Valentin (granite shop owner), and others who testified to pay-to-play schemes.
- Dimora and Gabor allegedly used their official influence to steer jobs, contracts, and favorable treatment to bribe-payers and their networks.
- The district court sentenced Dimora to 336 months and Gabor to 121 months in prison; the defendants challenged several trial rulings on appeal.
- The government introduced wiretaps, recorded calls, and corroborating testimony showing deliberate cover-ups and kickback schemes.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| RICO unanimity requirement on predicates | Gabor; need unanimity on specific predicate acts. | Dimora; district court should have required act-specific unanimity. | Unanimity on act types not required; general verdict acceptable. |
| Gifts versus bribes instructions | Distinctions were insufficient; need clearer charge distinguishing gifts from bribes. | Current instructions adequately distinguished permissible gifts from bribes. | Instructions properly traced the line; no abuse of discretion. |
| Sufficiency of the evidence for four counts | Abundant corroboration for Hobbs Act and fraud counts; sufficient to convict. | Some testimony lacked specificity and credibility undermining conviction. | Rational jury could find each element beyond reasonable doubt. |
| Motion for a new trial (Gabor) | District court properly denied; evidence supported verdicts and conspiracy findings. | District court abused its discretion; weight of evidence questionable. | No abuse of discretion; new-trial motion denied. |
| Exclusion of ethics reports and other-acts evidence | Ethics disclosures were admissible non-hearsay and probative of intent. | Exclusion was harmless error and other-acts evidence improperly excluded. | Ethics reports exclusion deemed harmless; other-acts evidence properly limited and admissible for non-character purposes. |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1981) (sufficiency review: rational finder could convict beyond a reasonable doubt)
- Terry, 707 F.3d 607 (6th Cir. 2013) (distinguishing bribery vs. legitimate influence in wiretap context)
- Evans v. United States, 504 U.S. 255 (U.S. 1992) (Hobbs Act requires payment in exchange for official acts)
- United States v. Sharpe, 996 F.2d 125 (6th Cir. 1993) (special verdict vs. general verdict on conspiracy predicates)
- United States v. Loftus, 992 F.2d 793 (8th Cir. 1993) (influence over means to an end qualifies as official action)
- United States v. Abbey, 560 F.3d 513 (6th Cir. 2009) (using public influence to obtain benefits can support bribery intent)
- Lane v. United States, 474 U.S. 438 (U.S. 1986) (harmless-error framework and considering error in context)
- United States v. Whitfield, 590 F.3d 325 (5th Cir. 2009) (evidence of value exchanged in exchange for official action)
- United States v. Poynter, 495 F.3d 349 (6th Cir. 2007) (credibility and weight assessment on appeal)
- United States v. Jenkins, 345 F.3d 928 (6th Cir. 2003) (Rule 404(b) analysis for other-acts evidence; probative purpose required)