United States v. Rod Blagojevich
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 12563
| 7th Cir. | 2015Background
- Blagojevich was convicted of 18 federal crimes after two trials; total 168 months, all sentences run concurrently.
- The first trial resulted in a conviction on one count and mistrial on others; second trial convicted on 17 counts.
- Alleged schemes included attempts to extort campaign contributions and solicit funds in exchange for official acts; wire fraud and false statements were charged as well.
- The charges involved attempts to trade official acts for private benefits, including a cabinet appointment and sums of money.
- Court held that most convictions were supported by evidence, but certain Cabinet-for-private-salary counts hinged on a misapplied jury instruction distinguishing logrolling from quid pro quo; those counts were vacated and remanded for retrial.
- District court allowed extensive evidence and made specific sentencing determinations, which this court largely affirmed or remanded for re-sentencing on vacated counts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Cabinet-for-private-salary exchange qualifies as Hobbs Act extortion | Blagojevich argues such a proposal is extortion | Government contends logrolling can constitute extortion under Hobbs Act | Not extortion; logrolling is not the same as property transfer; counts 5,6,21,22,23 vacated |
| Whether logrolling constitutes extortion under Hobbs Act | Blagojevich argues misinstruction led to improper conviction | Prosecution asserts correct application of statute and evidence | Counts vacated due to instructional error; retrial allowed on vacated counts |
| Whether a good-faith/knowingly-violate-the-law instruction was required | Blagojevich seeks a separate good-faith instruction | Instructions properly stated mens rea without extra “good faith” clause | No separate good-faith instruction required; proper mens rea elements were covered |
| Whether admissible evidence and closing arguments affected due process or required reversal | Closing argument referencing collateral issues violated due process | Record and scope of evidence support the verdict; any error harmless | Most evidentiary issues upheld; no due-process reversal; retrial on vacated counts permitted; remand for re-sentencing on all counts |
| Impact on sentence after vacating Cabinet counts | Sentence remains appropriate notwithstanding vacated counts | Guidelines calculation overstates loss and leadership enhancement | Vacate Cabinet counts; remand for re-sentencing; remaining convictions affirmed; 168-month sentence not set aside as unlawful |
Key Cases Cited
- Cleveland v. United States, 531 U.S. 12 (2000) (public positions not property; licenses not property in extortion context)
- Sekhar v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2720 (2013) (recommendations not property; logrolling vs property distinction in extortion)
- McCormick v. United States, 500 U.S. 257 (1991) (defines quid pro quo and limits extortion liability)
- Sun-Diamond Growers v. United States, 526 U.S. 398 (1999) (limits on private benefit concepts in honest-services/related crimes)
- Thompson, 484 F.3d 877 (7th Cir. 2007) (applies §666 and §1346; confirms scope of public employee interest not private benefit)
- Darden v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 168 (1986) (due-process standard for closings and prosecutorial comments; high bar for reversal)
- Griffin v. United States, 502 U.S. 46 (1991) (limits on implied knowledge defense under certain statutes)
- Hawkins v. United States, 777 F.3d 880 (7th Cir. 2015) (explains ‘corruptly’ and state-of-mind under §666)
- Caputo v. United States, 517 F.3d 935 (7th Cir. 2008) (no need for advice-of-counsel defense where not applicable )