United States v. Skelos
988 F.3d 645
| 2d Cir. | 2021Background:
- Dean Skelos was New York State Senate Majority Leader (2011–2015); his son Adam Skelos received jobs/payments from private entities (Glenwood/ALS, AbTech, PRI) while Dean handled legislation affecting those entities.
- Glenwood/ALS: meetings about renewal of Section 421‑a and rent regulation; Glenwood associates arranged a $20,000 payment to Adam and helped place him at AbTech.
- AbTech: Adam was on a consulting contract; AbTech bid for a Nassau County storm‑water RFP; communications linked Adam’s compensation to Dean producing legislation/funding to benefit AbTech, after which Adam’s pay increased.
- PRI: CEO Bonomo hired Adam (salary ~$78,000) and later kept him as a consultant; Bonomo repeatedly met with Dean about critical “extenders” legislation that protected PRI’s business.
- First trial (2015) produced convictions but was vacated for instructional error after McDonnell; a second trial (2018) with revised instructions again convicted Dean and Adam on Hobbs Act extortion, honest‑services conspiracy, and §666 bribery/gratuities; this appeal followed.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jury instructions re: "as opportunities arise" bribery theory | Gov: theory remains valid after McDonnell; jury may convict if official was expected to act as opportunities arose | Skelos: theory invalid under McDonnell; instructions too broad | Court: theory survives (per Silver); any instruction error was harmless; convictions affirmed |
| Specificity — identification of the "specific and focused" matter at time of payment | Gov: circumstantial evidence can show shared understanding of particular matters | Skelos: jury should have been required to find matter identified at time of payment | Court: instructions lacked that timing requirement but error harmless given record showing specific matters (421‑a, RFP, extenders) |
| Indictment sufficiency | Gov: indictment tracked statute and alleged time/place | Skelos: indictment failed to allege agreement to take particular actions at time of solicitation/acceptance | Court: indictment adequate; Silver preserves theory; indictment need only track statute and approximate time/place |
| Venue transfer | Gov: SDNY proper; jury selection fair | Skelos: pervasive prejudicial NY press and biased venire required transfer | Court: denied transfer was not an abuse; 3 years elapsed since press and voir dire produced impartial jurors |
| §666 gratuities theory | Gov: §666 covers both bribery and gratuities; convictions were also supported by bribery theory | Skelos: §666 should not permit gratuities convictions (asks to overturn Bonito) | Court: bound by Bonito; jury convicted on bribery as well; §666 gratuity theory not a basis for reversal |
| Quashed subpoenas (Rule 17/Nixon) | Skelos: subpoenas sought impeachment evidence from PRI/Glenwood/Dorego; denial violated rights | Gov: requests were overbroad, fishing expeditions, or documents obtainable otherwise | Court: quashings reviewed for abuse of discretion; district court properly applied Nixon/Rule 17 and did not abuse discretion |
| Denial of evidentiary hearing on alleged grand‑jury leaks (Rule 6(e)) | Skelos: news reports citing "government sources" warranted a prima facie showing and hearing | Gov: affidavits denied AUSA/agents spoke to press; reports did not identify prohibited sources | Court: district court did not abuse discretion in finding no prima facie Rule 6(e) violation |
| Adam Skelos — evidentiary & sufficiency challenges | Adam: income records and a phone call were irrelevant/prejudicial; insufficient evidence he knew of specific promised acts | Gov: evidence relevant to intent/knowledge; record shows Adam’s awareness of schemes | Court: admitted evidence was relevant and not unfairly prejudicial; sufficiency contest fails—record supports Adam’s knowledge and convictions |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2355 (2016) (Supreme Court narrowed the definition of “official act” for bribery/official‑act prosecutions)
- United States v. Silver, 948 F.3d 538 (2d Cir. 2020) (held "as opportunities arise" bribery theory survives McDonnell but requires identification of a specific matter)
- United States v. Bonito, 57 F.3d 167 (2d Cir. 1995) (§666 may support gratuities convictions)
- United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974) (Rule 17(c) subpoena standards for production; limits on fishing expeditions)
- United States v. Ganim, 510 F.3d 134 (2d Cir. 2007) (pre‑McDonnell endorsement of "as opportunities arise" quid pro quo theory)
- United States v. Bruno, 661 F.3d 733 (2d Cir. 2011) (same; acts as opportunities arise can satisfy quid pro quo)