United States v. Verrusio
Criminal No. 2009-0064
| D.D.C. | Jun 19, 2017Background
- Verrusio, a former House committee policy director, was convicted in 2011 on three counts: conspiracy to receive an illegal gratuity (18 U.S.C. § 371), receipt of an illegal gratuity (18 U.S.C. § 201(c)), and making a false statement on a financial disclosure form (18 U.S.C. § 1001(a)).
- After direct appeal failed (D.C. Cir. affirmed), Verrusio sought relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 and, alternatively, a writ of error coram nobis based on McDonnell v. United States narrowing “official act.”
- The district court dismissed the § 2255 habeas petition for lack of custody and denied coram nobis relief, holding Verrusio could not show that vacating Counts I and II would redress his ongoing collateral injuries because Count III (a felony) would remain.
- Verrusio moved for reconsideration under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e), arguing (1) he has Article III standing to seek coram nobis and (2) vacatur of Counts I–II would require vacatur of Count III due to prejudicial spillover.
- The court applied the Rule 59(e) standard (intervening law, new evidence, or clear error/manifest injustice) and reaffirmed that coram nobis requires (inter alia) adverse consequences that are redressable by vacatur; it denied reconsideration.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (United States) | Defendant's Argument (Verrusio) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Article III standing / adverse consequences for coram nobis | Vacating Counts I–II would not redress alleged collateral disabilities because Count III would remain; thus no jurisdiction | He suffers civil disabilities from convictions and alleges "violation of his rights," giving standing | Court: No standing; alleged injuries are not redressable because Count III remains; dismissal affirmed |
| Nature of the "adverse consequences" prong — jurisdictional or merits | Adverse-consequences requirement incorporates Article III case-or-controversy limits and is jurisdictional for coram nobis | Argues adverse-consequences is a merits inquiry and he meets it | Court: Treats prong as jurisdictional (or at least requiring redressability); Verrusio fails it because vacatur of Counts I–II would not eliminate his disabilities |
| Prejudicial spillover — would vacatur of I–II require vacatur of III? | Even if considered, spillover standard not met: much evidence for Count III would be admissible in a Count-III-only trial; government’s Count III case was strong | Contends Counts I–II were central and inflammatory; without them jury would have had reasonable doubt on Count III | Court: Reconsideration untimely as new argument; on merits, spillover not shown — evidence about the World Series trip was admissible to prove motive/knowledge and was corroborated by admissions, so no pervasive prejudice |
| Rule 59(e) standard for reconsideration | Reconsideration reserved for intervening law, new evidence, or clear error/manifest injustice; defendant bears heavy burden | Seeks relief based on McDonnell and newly asserted spillover theory | Court: Denies relief — no intervening error/new evidence; spillover argument was new and fails merits; not "dead wrong" or manifestly unjust |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2355 (2016) (narrowed scope of "official act" for bribery/gratuity prosecutions)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (standing requires injury in fact, causation, and redressability)
- Denedo v. United States, 556 U.S. 904 (2009) (All Writs Act relief contingent on Article III jurisdiction)
- United States v. Morgan, 346 U.S. 502 (1954) (coram nobis available only in extraordinary circumstances for fundamental errors)
- United States v. Verrusio, 762 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (direct appeal affirming sufficiency of evidence on Count III)
- George v. United States, 676 F.3d 249 (1st Cir. 2012) (coram nobis requires showing vacatur would eliminate claimed collateral consequences)