United States v. Thomas Pacchioli
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 12473
| 11th Cir. | 2013Background
- Pacchioli, Andrei, and Kennedy were hospital contractors who bribed Memorial Regional and Memorial Hospital West managers for contracts.
- Memorial managers Gordon, Merola, and Osman exercised discretion over contracts; some under $5k could be awarded without bidding, others over $10k required bids.
- Gordon created dummy entities to conceal bribes; generators and other goods were provided as kickbacks.
- Indictment (2011) charged conspiracy under 18 U.S.C. § 371 and substantive bribery under § 666(a)(2) for bribes tied to >$5,000 transactions and >$10,000 in federal funding.
- Pacchioli argued limitations began at the agreement, more than five years before indictment; government proved bribes were paid within five years of indictment.
- Court held limitations ran from actual bribe payment/installation within five years of indictment, not from agreement date.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| When does § 666(a)(2) limitations period begin? | Pacchioli: start at agreement to bribe. | Pacchioli argues counting from earliest bribe. | Limitations run from actual giving (payment) within five years. |
| Sufficiency of evidence for conspiracy and bribery | Gordon’s testimony shows conspiratorial bribery by Andrei and Kennedy. | Insufficient evidence that generators were bribes, not sales. | Evidence sufficient; hub-and-spoke conspiracy proven. |
| Limitation on cross-examination of Gordon | Andrei claims Sixth Amendment violation. | Court deprived cross-exam on impairment statement. | No violation; cross-examination adequate and statement exclusion harmless. |
| Jury read-back of testimony | Andrei: district court erred by denying read-back. | Request should have been granted. | Discretionary denial; no prejudice. |
| Kennedy indictment sufficiency/multiplicity | Indictment flawed or multiplicious. | Waived by failing to raise pre-trial. | Waiver applies; indictment and sentences considered harmless. |
Key Cases Cited
- Toussie v. United States, 397 U.S. 112 (1970) (limitations generally run when crime is complete)
- United States v. Irvine, 98 U.S. 450 (1879) (offense complete when elements met)
- United States v. Castro, 89 F.3d 1443 (11th Cir. 1996) (three disjunctive ways to prove § 666(a)(2))
- United States v. Felts, 579 F.3d 1341 (11th Cir. 2009) (disjunctive elements same offense be proven)
- United States v. Orr, 825 F.2d 1537 (11th Cir. 1987) (not require co-conspirators know all members)
- United States v. Huff, 609 F.3d 1240 (11th Cir. 2010) (hub-and-spoke conspiracy; need awareness of common aim)
- United States v. Gossett, 877 F.2d 901 (11th Cir. 1989) (co-defendant statements not admissible as party-opponent where not party opponent)