United States v. Richard Renzi
769 F.3d 731
| 9th Cir. | 2014Background
- Richard Renzi, former Arizona Congressman and owner of an insurance agency (R & C / Patriot), was convicted by a jury of public corruption (conspiracy, extortion, honest‑services fraud), insurance fraud (false statements to regulators), money‑laundering counts, and RICO; codefendant James Sandlin was also convicted on related public‑corruption counts.
- Evidence showed Renzi diverted client insurance premiums to fund his congressional campaign, issued fabricated insurance certificates to conceal lapses, and lied to state insurance regulators.
- Renzi and Sandlin negotiated land‑exchange dealings: Renzi allegedly conditioned congressional support for a favorable federal land‑exchange bill on inclusion of Sandlin’s property; after The Aries Group paid deposits to buy the Sandlin tract, Sandlin routed $200,000 to Renzi (through Renzi entities) and later repaid additional sums that benefited Renzi.
- The government prosecuted under the Hobbs Act (extortion under color of official right), honest‑services fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1346), insurance‑fraud statutes (18 U.S.C. § 1033), wire/mail fraud, money‑laundering statutes, and RICO (18 U.S.C. § 1962(c)); Renzi and Sandlin appealed on sufficiency and various constitutional/evidentiary grounds.
- The Ninth Circuit affirmed all convictions and sentences, rejecting challenges to sufficiency of evidence, Speech or Debate Clause claims, alleged Napue violations, CIPA exclusions, and sentencing enhancements.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Renzi/Sandlin) | Defendant's Argument (Government) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for Hobbs Act extortion / honest‑services fraud | Payment to Sandlin (and onward to Renzi) was fair‑market consideration for land; no "something of value" obtained by coercion; no net loss | Evidence showed Aries bought only because of Renzi’s promise; the $200,000 paid to Sandlin (part to Renzi) was payment made in return for official acts — sufficient under Hobbs Act and § 1346 | Affirmed: jury could rationally find payment was "something of value" obtained in exchange for official acts; equal‑value exchange argument rejected. |
| Speech or Debate Clause (admission of Keene testimony; refusal to compel Messner/Kolbe testimony) | Admission of Keene’s testimony and exclusion of Messner testimony violated Renzi’s Speech or Debate protections and deprived him of a complete defense | Renzi opened the door by eliciting legislative‑act evidence; government’s rebuttal narrowly confined; another member’s privilege (Kolbe) cannot be waived by Renzi | Affirmed: government rebuttal to Renzi’s own elicited legislative‑act evidence was permissible; district court properly honored Kolbe’s absolute privilege and excluded Messner on that basis. |
| Alleged Napue (knowing use of false testimony by Aries and Keene) | Prosecutors knowingly elicited false testimony about when Aries first learned of the Sandlin tract; that falsehood was material | Any inaccuracies were minor or honest mistakes; defense impeached witnesses; statements were immaterial to core quid pro quo question | Affirmed: no reasonable likelihood false testimony affected jury; Napue claim fails (materiality prong not met). |
| § 1033 insurance‑fraud convictions ("engaged in the business of insurance" and "financial ... documents") | R & C was merely a broker/producer, not an "insurer" or actor "in the business of insurance" under § 1033; regulator letters were not "financial documents"; jury instruction too broad | R & C performed underwriting, bound coverage for Royal Surplus, collected premiums, issued certificates, and acted on insurers’ behalf; regulator letters concealed management of money/financial health and qualify as "financial documents" | Affirmed: evidence supported that R & C was engaged in the business of insurance (could bind Royal Surplus or perform acts incidental to writing insurance) and the regulator letters related to financial management; jury instruction correct. |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (establishes standard for sufficiency of evidence review)
- Evans v. United States, 504 U.S. 255 (quid pro quo/extortion under color of official right requires obtaining payment in return for official acts)
- Skilling v. United States, 561 U.S. 358 (limits/defines honest‑services fraud under § 1346)
- Helstoski v. United States, 442 U.S. 477 (Speech or Debate Clause protects members from being questioned about legislative acts)
- McDade v. United States, 28 F.3d 283 (3d Cir.) (a member who injects legislative‑act evidence at trial opens the door to cross‑examination/rebuttal)
- Panaro, 266 F.3d 939 (9th Cir.) (extortion complete if proceeds reach public official or cooperating third party)
- Nevils, 598 F.3d 1158 (9th Cir.) (sufficiency review articulation)
- Lequire v. United States, 672 F.3d 724 (9th Cir.) (construction of § 1033 on embezzlement / funds "in trust")
- White Eagle, 721 F.3d 1108 (9th Cir.) (interpretation of Sentencing Guideline prong concerning "benefit received")