United States v. Tony DeVaughn Nelson
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 5151
| 11th Cir. | 2013Background
- Nelson, a former JaxPort board member and former chairman (2006–2007), was convicted in the Middle District of Florida of honest-services mail fraud, federal funds bribery, conspiracy, and related offenses.
- The government alleged Nelson sought and accepted payments from SSI and its owner, routed through intermediaries, to influence JaxPort matters.
- Trial evidence showed Nelson conditioned his influence on SSI and engaged in conduct (e.g., change orders, contract dealings, retainage) to assist SSI despite not voting on SSI matters.
- Naranjo, JaxPort’s procurement director, testified about Nelson’s 2005 meeting pressuring staff and suggesting SSI was ready to proceed; this pre-conspiracy conduct was admitted at trial.
- Payments to Nelson occurred via the Wren Group (Frank Bernadino) from 2006–2007 and a $50,000 lump-sum in March 2008; the payments were framed as consulting fees and loans at various times.
- On appeal, Nelson challenged (i) vagueness of §§ 1341, 1346, 666(a)(1)(B) as applied, (ii) the jury instructions on bribe concepts, and (iii) admission of Naranjo’s testimony under Rule 403; the panel affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vagueness as applied | Nelson argues §1341, §1346, §666(a)(1)(B) lack ascertainable standards for fiduciary duties. | Nelson contends the statutes are vague as applied to his fiduciary duties at JaxPort. | No reversible vagueness; statutes gave adequate notice with scienter requirements. |
| Jury instructions on bribe | Instructions were circular about what constitutes a bribe, impeding juror understanding. | If invited error, the circularity was cured and instructions otherwise correctly stated law. | Instructions were not plainly erroneous; overall correct and did not prejudice fair trial. |
| Admission of Naranjo testimony | Naranjo’s testimony about pre-conspiracy conduct unfairly invited conviction on uncharged acts. | Testimony probative for motive and influence; probative value outweighed potential prejudice. | No reversible abuse of discretion; testimony properly admitted with probative value. |
| As-applied constraints under Skilling | Constitutional limits on honest-services and related statutes should bar as-applied application. | Skilling allows limited scope and does not render facts here constitutionally invalid. | Court affirmed under Skilling’s limiting construction; not invalid as applied. |
| Public-official fiduciary duty scope | Nelson’s role as unpaid, part-time board member creates indeterminacy about fiduciary duties. | Public officials owe fiduciary duties; Nelson’s influence was within official capacity. | Not a basis to reverse; Nelson’s conduct falls within recognized fiduciary-framework guidance. |
Key Cases Cited
- Skilling v. United States, 561 U.S. 358 (Supreme Court 2010) (upheld §1346 with limiting construction; core honest-services theory)
- United States v. Langford, 647 F.3d 1309 (11th Cir. 2011) (describes bribery as core honest-services fraud)
- United States v. Lopez-Lukis, 102 F.3d 1164 (11th Cir. 1997) (fiduciary duty and bribe-related conduct in honest-services context)
- United States v. de Vegter, 198 F.3d 1324 (11th Cir. 1999) (public officials inherently owe fiduciary duties)
- United States v. Walker, 490 F.3d 1282 (11th Cir. 2007) (honest-services doctrine considerations)
- United States v. McElroy, 910 F.2d 1016 (2d Cir. 1990) (definitions of ‘corruptly’ in bribery context)
- United States v. Tobin, 676 F.3d 1264 (11th Cir. 2012) ( vagueness and interpretation considerations)