United States v. Wayne Bryant
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 17753
| 3rd Cir. | 2011Background
- Bryant, a New Jersey State Senator, and Gallagher, former SOM Dean, were charged in 2007 with six counts of honest services fraud, one count of bribery, and Bryant with mail fraud related to a pension scheme.
- Gallagher created a part‑time 'Program Support Coordinator' position at SOM with a $35,000 salary; Bryant received a $5,000 bonus and was expected to help secure state funding for SOM.
- Evidence showed a quid pro quo: Bryant’s official actions to expand SOM funding in exchange for the SOM salary/benefits (a ‘stream of benefits’).
- A second Bryant scheme alleged misrepresentation of pension-qualifying work for creditable service to inflate his pension benefits.
- At trial, the government offered testimony about creditable service from the Pension Division director; defense objected to legal testimony, later limited by instructions.
- Bryant and Gallagher were convicted on most counts; Bryant received 48 months, Gallagher 18 months, with restitution of $113,167 to UMDNJ.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Prosecutorial misconduct and witness access | Bryant claims due process violation and Rule 6(e)(2)(A) secrecy effects. | Bryant/Gallagher argue secrecy requests restricted defense witnesses. | No due process violation; letters clarified witnesses could speak to defense. |
| Sufficiency of evidence for honest services and bribery | Evidence supported quid pro quo bribery and stream-of-benefits. | Insufficient proof of explicit quid pro quo and mens rea. | Sufficient evidence; convictions affirmed on honest services and bribery. |
| Jury instructions post-Skilling | Instructions properly reflected bribery/stream-of-benefits theory. | Skilling narrowed honest services core; instructions flawed. | No reversible error; instructions adequate and consistent with law. |
| Bryant's pension fraud sufficiency and Beaver testimony | Beaver’s materiality testimony aided proof of fraud. | Beaver testified on legal issues; limiting instruction insufficient. | Beaver testimony properly admitted; limiting instruction adequate; no acquittal/new trial required. |
| Restitution under MVRA | UMDNJ/SOM losses justify full restitution to victimized entity. | Offset for legitimate services and proper victim status contested. | Restitution upheld; UMDNJ is a valid MVRA victim; no offset deemed appropriate. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Kemp, 500 F.3d 257 (3d Cir. 2007) (stream-of-benefits theory of honest services fraud bribery)
- United States v. Sun-Diamond Growers, 526 U.S. 398 (Supreme Court 1999) (bribery requires intent to influence or be influenced; quid pro quo concept)
- Skilling v. United States, 561 U.S. 358 (Supreme Court 2010) (limits honest services fraud to core bribery/kickback schemes)
- United States v. Antico, 275 F.3d 245 (3d Cir. 2001) (explains bribery and honest services fraud concepts)
- United States v. Hood, 343 U.S. 148 (Supreme Court 1952) (requirement of exchange in bribery interpretations)
- United States v. Lee, 573 F.3d 155 (3d Cir. 2009) (standard for reviewing jury instructions and sufficiency)