United States v. Tavares
844 F.3d 46
| 1st Cir. | 2016Background
- From 2000–2010, Commissioner O'Brien, Deputy Commissioners Tavares and Burke oversaw Massachusetts Probation hiring; plaintiffs allege they ran a patronage scheme favoring politically "sponsored" candidates.
- The OCP used a three-round hiring process (screening, local 3‑member panel, final OCP panel); O'Brien added an informal third round and signed certifications representing compliance with the Manual and CJAM approval.
- Legislators routinely referred candidates; OCP staff compiled "sponsor lists" and directed panels to advance preferred names; some employees reported score‑inflation and retaliation for noncompliance.
- Federal indictment charged RICO conspiracy, substantive RICO (based on mail fraud and state gratuities predicates), and multiple mail‑fraud counts tied to particular hires and mailed rejection/appointment communications.
- After a 47‑day trial, the jury convicted all three of RICO conspiracy; O'Brien and Tavares convicted on substantive RICO and several mail‑fraud counts; Burke acquitted on mail fraud. The First Circuit reviewed sufficiency of evidence and legal scope of the charged statutes.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether gov't proved violations of Mass. gratuities statute (link between thing of value and a specific official act) | Jobs given were a thing of substantial value and were linked to specific legislative acts or votes (e.g., ELMO hires tied to DeLeo/Speaker support) | Gratuities statute requires proof of a specific official act; evidence shows only general goodwill or influence, not a discrete act tied to hires | Reversed—evidence insufficient; Sun‑Diamond/Scaccia require linkage to a specific official act, which was not proved |
| Whether mailed rejection/appointment letters satisfied § 1341 (mailing "in furtherance" of scheme) | Rejection letters and certain mailed appointment materials perpetuated the façade of a merit system and lulled discovery, thus furthering the scheme | Mailings were routine HR communications required by the Manual and not material to execution/perpetuation of any federal fraud | Reversed—mailing element not satisfied; letters did not materially further or perpetuate the fraud as required by § 1341 |
| Whether predicate acts supported RICO convictions (sufficient racketeering acts) | Multiple mail‑fraud and gratuities acts supplied the required pattern of racketeering activity | Predicate acts were legally deficient (gratuities lacked specific‑act nexus; mailings not "in furtherance") | Reversed—insufficient predicates to sustain RICO convictions |
| Whether extensive juror questioning undermined trial fairness | N/A (government relied on record) | Allowing hundreds of juror questions converted jurors into fact‑gatherers and risked undue influence; juror questioning should be exceptional | Court expressed strong reservations; noted volume/content of juror questions far exceeded precedents and risked turning jurors into investigators (issue moot given reversal) |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2355 (U.S. 2016) ("official act" requires a decision or action on a specific matter beyond mere meetings or discussions)
- Sun‑Diamond Growers of Cal. v. United States, 526 U.S. 398 (U.S. 1999) (gratuities require link to a specific official act; forbids treating gifts as mere goodwill reservoir)
- Schmuck v. United States, 489 U.S. 705 (U.S. 1989) (mailings that are incident to essential part of scheme can satisfy § 1341 when necessary to perpetuate fraud)
- United States v. Cacho‑Bonilla, 404 F.3d 84 (1st Cir. 2005) (discusses mailing requirement where ongoing relationship and mailings perpetuated scheme)
- United States v. Hebshie, 549 F.3d 30 (1st Cir. 2008) (mailing element analyzed in context of expected criss‑cross of communications in insurance fraud)
- Scaccia v. State Ethics Comm'n, 727 N.E.2d 824 (Mass. 2000) (Massachusetts gratuities analysis: require proof linking gift to a particular act; courts may use legislative subject/timing/voting patterns as evidence)
- Kann v. United States, 323 U.S. 88 (U.S. 1944) (mail fraud requires that mailings be for the purpose of executing the scheme)
- Maze v. United States, 414 U.S. 395 (U.S. 1974) (mailing must be for the purpose of executing the scheme; statute not satisfied by any incidental use of mail)