United States v. Rowland
826 F.3d 100
| 2d Cir. | 2016Background
- John G. Rowland, former CT governor, sought paid political consulting work for 2010 and 2012 campaigns; payments from Lisa Wilson‑Foley’s husband’s company (Apple Rehab) were arranged to avoid FEC reporting.
- Rowland prepared a draft contract for Mark Greenberg (2009) and signed a contract purportedly with Apple/Shelton (2011) while actually working for Wilson‑Foley’s campaign; his role on the campaign increased after the Apple contract.
- Federal investigation followed public disclosure of the arrangement in April 2012; a grand jury indicted Rowland on counts including falsification of records under 18 U.S.C. § 1519, conspiracy, false FEC statements, and illegal campaign contributions.
- At trial a jury convicted Rowland on all counts; district court sentenced him to 30 months’ imprisonment and denied his motion for a new trial based on alleged Brady violations.
- On appeal Rowland principally argued (1) § 1519 does not reach creation of purported contracts that misrepresent negotiations, (2) the government withheld exculpatory Brady material (Wilson‑Foley interview), and (3) various evidentiary, jury‑instruction, and sentencing errors.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope of 18 U.S.C. § 1519 — meaning of “falsify” | Gov’t: § 1519 broadly forbids creating or manipulating records/documents that misrepresent facts to obstruct investigations. | Rowland: “Falsify” should be limited to tampering with preexisting documents, not creating new documents; contract law bars treating contractual promises as false. | Court: “Falsify” includes creating documents that misrepresent the truth; plain meaning, context, and legislative history support this breadth. |
| Application of § 1519 to Rowland’s contracts | Gov’t: Greenberg draft and Foley/Apple contract were created to misrepresent the parties’ true political consulting agreement and to frustrate investigations. | Rowland: Contracts reflected legal commitments and are not false merely because parties didn’t intend performance; Blankenship controls. | Court: Contracts were falsified because they misrepresented the true relationships and were created to conceal; Blankenship not dispositive; Jespersen and other precedents support conviction. |
| Brady disclosure (Wilson‑Foley interview) | Rowland: Government failed to disclose exculpatory interview statements that would have impeached witnesses and possibly changed outcome. | Gov’t/District Ct: MOI and other disclosed materials already contained the critical denials; any omitted notes were cumulative and not material. | Court: No Brady violation as disclosed material and other evidence made omitted statements non‑material; no reasonable probability of different result. |
| Evidentiary rulings — inadmissibility of Rowland’s emails/texts to Apple COO | Rowland: Writings showed he actually worked for Apple and were admissible non‑hearsay to prove his conduct. | Gov’t: Admission would let Rowland testify via documents without cross‑examination; hearsay concerns. | Court: District court erred in excluding as hearsay but error was harmless because defense could and did use writings to refresh witness memory and other evidence showed Apple work. |
| Sentencing Guideline enhancement — valuation of illegal transactions | Gov’t: Use full $35,000 paid by Apple to calculate guideline enhancement. | Rowland: Offset $5,000 for legitimate services he performed for Apple. | Court: Enhancement proper; services were inseparable from the cover‑up and payments were tied to illegal scheme, so no offset. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Mi Sun Cho, 713 F.3d 716 (2d Cir.) (standard for viewing evidence on sufficiency review)
- Yates v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 1074 (2015) (statutory‑interpretation canons and limits on expansive readings)
- United States v. Dauray, 215 F.3d 257 (2d Cir. 2000) (start with plain meaning in statutory interpretation)
- United States v. Blankenship, 382 F.3d 1110 (11th Cir. 2004) (contract promises and falsity under a different false‑writing statute)
- United States v. Jespersen, 65 F.3d 993 (2d Cir. 1995) (contract treated as false when inconsistent with true relationship)
- United States v. Mahaffy, 693 F.3d 113 (2d Cir. 2012) (Brady materiality standard)
- Youngblood v. West Virginia, 547 U.S. 867 (2006) (Brady/constitutional disclosure principles)