United States v. Rosen
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 10755
| 2d Cir. | 2013Background
- Rosen, former CEO of MediSys Health Network, was convicted after a bench trial of honest services fraud and conspiracy related to bribes to NY legislators.
- MediSys paid sham consulting fees to Assemblymen Seminerio and Boyland and to Senator Kruger via MARC/Adex to influence state funding and contracts.
- Contracts stated MARC would not provide state-law consulting, yet Rosen used them as cover for bribery tied to MediSys’s interests.
- Rosen concealed these consulting arrangements from MediSys’s governance bodies and on VENDEX disclosures.
- District Court found the consulting schemes served as a cover for bribes and concluded Rosen acted with the intent to bribe in exchange for official acts.
- Rosen appealed on vagueness, sufficiency of evidence on intent, and denial of immunity for a defense witness.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vagueness of as opportunities arise theory | Rosen argues the theory is vague as applied | Rosen argues the theory lacks fair notice and is overbroad | Not void for vagueness; theory valid as applied to facts |
| Sufficiency of proof of corrupt intent | Gives evidence of intent to confer benefits for official acts | Evidence insufficient to show specific intent to bribe | Evidence supports specific-intent to bribe with quid pro quo |
| Immunity for defense witness Kalkines | Immunity should be granted to compel testimony | Immunity warranted given potential exculpatory testimony | District court did not abuse discretion; exceptional circumstances not shown |
| Reliance on Public Officers Law and outside employment | Public Officers Law allowed outside employment for legislators | Contracts were sham to circumvent law and enable bribes | Convictions not invalidated; acts found to be corrupt under theory of cover and intent |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Ganim, 510 F.3d 134 (2d Cir. 2007) (defining quid pro quo and corrupt intent in bribery schemes)
- Skilling v. United States, 561 U.S. 358 (U.S. 2010) (void-for-vagueness; emphasizes fair notice and flexibility in broad offenses)
- United States v. Bruno, 661 F.3d 733 (2d Cir. 2011) (constructive proof of intent to bribe; opportunity as the basis for quid pro quo)
- United States v. Coyne, 4 F.3d 100 (2d Cir. 1993) (reaffirmed that payments need not match exact acts; opportunity-based bribery)
- United States v. Alfisi, 308 F.3d 144 (2d Cir. 2002) (definition of specific intent in bribery cases)
- McCormick v. United States, 500 U.S. 257 (U.S. 1991) (limits on requirements for express promises in bribery cases)
- United States v. Litwok, 678 F.3d 208 (2d Cir. 2012) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence after conviction)
- United States v. Todaro, 744 F.2d 5 (2d Cir. 1984) (immunity and defense witness considerations)