United States v. Robinson
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 22162
7th Cir.2011Background
- Robinson ran a cocaine-trafficking operation in Washington Park Homes, Chicago.
- A sting occurred after he offered a $1,000-per-week bribe to Officer Weyforth to “get the heat off” his drug trafficking.
- Robinson paid Weyforth over several weeks; a deal was formed to deliver two kilograms of cocaine bought with $5,000 up front and $5,000 later.
- Robinson was convicted on federal funds bribery under 18 U.S.C. § 666(a)(2) and attempted possession with intent to distribute under 21 U.S.C. § 846.
- The district court’s handling of jury instructions included a coercion instruction whose omission from the posted electronic docket is contested on appeal.
- The court analyzes (i) the coercion instruction issue, (ii) the federal-funds element, and (iii) the transactional element of § 666(a)(2).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Coercion instruction omission impact | Government argues no plain error; instruction given, and omission not affecting rights | Robinson contends omission was plain error affecting trial fairness | Omission not shown to affect substantial rights; no plain error |
| Federal-funds element sufficiency | Chicago PD received over $10,000 in federal funds during the relevant year | Evidence insufficient to prove >$10,000 funded year | Evidence showed >$4 million city grant with PD receipt; sufficient to satisfy § 666(b) |
| Transactional element sufficiency (intangible business) | Bribe intended to influence PD’s business; value shown by salaries, ongoing bribe, and potential profits | Value of intangible law-enforcement activity cannot be proven; reliance on bribe amount limited | Statutory language broad; evidence sufficient to show value meets $5,000 threshold; bribe may evidence value of intangible business; rational juror could convict |
Key Cases Cited
- Sabri v. United States, 541 U.S. 600 (U.S. 2004) (limits on government power under Spending Clause; no nexus required between bribe and funds)
- Salinas v. United States, 522 U.S. 52 (U.S. 1997) (transactional element not confined to affecting funds; broad 'any' language)
- Marmolejo v. United States, 89 F.3d 1185 (5th Cir. 1996) (intangible bribes can satisfy § 666(a)(2)'s $5,000 threshold; value need not map to city’s value)
- Townsend v. United States, 630 F.3d 1003 (11th Cir. 2011) (intangible benefits can meet § 666(a) value threshold; bribe amount used as proxy)
- United States v. Zimmermann, 509 F.3d 920 (8th Cir. 2007) (valorization of bribes for intangible transactions under § 666(a))
- United States v. Fernandes, 272 F.3d 938 (3d Cir. 2001) (affirmed § 666(a) conviction for bribery involving expungement)