United States v. Reese
666 F.3d 1007
| 7th Cir. | 2012Background
- Reese, a Chicago building inspector, was convicted at trial of conspiracy to commit bribery and two counts of making false statements to federal agents.
- The conspiracy allegedly spanned 2005–2006 with other inspectors, a contractor, and associates who exchanged favors for permits and related services.
- Evidence included testimony from cooperating witnesses and recordings between Reese and informants, Johnson, and others.
- The trial also referenced a handwritten 2005 gift list identifying Reese as a recipient of gifts to city inspectors.
- At sentencing, the district court attributed $112,500 in bribes to Reese, increasing his offense level by eight levels.
- The Seventh Circuit affirmed, finding admission of the gift list was harmless error and other evidentiary rulings/quantification of loss were proper.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of the gift list and testimony under Rule 404(b) | Gift list supported intent and conspiratorial relation. | List not a permissible 404(b) or business record; prejudicial. | Admission was proper; error harmless. |
| Admission of the 2005 gift list as a business record | List supports regular business records behavior. | No foundation; not a proper business record. | Abuse of discretion; harmless error. |
| Exclusion of Reese–Romasanta recordings | Recordings would contextualize the case. | Cross-examination and completeness grounds. | Court did not abuse discretion; no Confrontation Clause violation. |
| Loss calculation for bribes at sentencing | $112,500 properly reflects conspiratorial loss. | Only properly attributable losses should be counted; challenges to items. | $112,500 for loss; eight-level increase sustained. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Price, 516 F.3d 597 (7th Cir. 2008) (standard for Rule 404(b) abuse of discretion; harmless error analysis)
- United States v. LeShore, 543 F.3d 935 (7th Cir. 2008) (business-record foundation standards; appellate review standard)
- United States v. Vargas, 552 F.3d 550 (7th Cir. 2008) (prejudice vs. probative value in 404(b) context)
- United States v. Wantuch, 525 F.3d 505 (7th Cir. 2008) (unfair prejudice and probative value balancing; limiting instruction)
- United States v. Andreas, 216 F.3d 645 (7th Cir. 2000) (prejudice versus probative value in evidentiary rulings)
- United States v. Muhammad, 120 F.3d 688 (7th Cir. 1997) (solicitation and related acts treated as underlying offense for sentencing)