United States v. Wilkes
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 21112
| 9th Cir. | 2011Background
- Wilkes was convicted on conspiracy, honest services wire fraud, bribery, and money laundering in connection with Cunningham's bribery scheme.
- ADCS, Wilkes' company, pursued federal contracts by cultivating relationships with Cunningham and Hunter, funded by illicit payments and lavish benefits.
- Cunningham facilitated earmarks and contract awards benefiting Wilkes; in return Wilkes provided meals, trips, and mortgage payments tied to Cunningham's property.
- Defendant Wade and MZM later joined the scheme; multiple transfers and off-book payments were used to conceal gains and secure contracts.
- Trial occurred after an investigation; Williams potential testimony was offered by defense but immunity was not granted by the district court.
- Post-trial, Wilkes challenged immunity decision, Brady/Giglio disclosure, prosecutorial conduct, and evidentiary sufficiency, with the district court judgment upheld in most respects but remanded for immunization proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Williams use immunity should have been compelled | Wilkes argues Williams would corroborate defense; Straub allows compelled immunity in exceptional cases. | District court erred by not compelling immunity absent prosecutorial misconduct. | Remanded for evidentiary hearing on immunity. |
| Brady/Giglio suppression and witness impeachment | Wilkes contends suppressed impeachment material undermines verdict. | Prosecution conduct violated Brady/Giglio and affected credibility. | No reversible Brady/Giglio error; evidence not likely to alter verdict; no plain error found. |
| Prosecutorial closing arguments and burden-shifting | Prosecutors false/misleading statements biased jury; burden shifted. | Arguments were proper responses to defense tactics and invited by defense. | No reversible error; arguments within scope of permissible advocacy. |
| Continuance to review discovery | Denied continuance prejudiced Wilkes by limiting defense preparation. | Continuance denial was not an abuse of discretion given no proven prejudice. | No reversible error; no showing that verdict would differ with more time. |
| Sufficiency/merger under Skilling for honest services and related counts | Skilling requires limiting honest services theories; remaining theory supports conviction. | Multiple theories invalid post-Skilling; insufficient evidence for some counts. | Sufficiency held; Bribery basis supports honest services verdict; error deemed harmless. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Straub, 538 F.3d 1147 (9th Cir. 2008) (two-part test for compelled immunity when due process requires it)
- United States v. Young, 470 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1985) (limitations on prosecutorial remarks and invited responses in closing)
- United States v. Kojayan, 8 F.3d 1315 (9th Cir. 1993) (invited response doctrine; not all misstatements are excused)
- United States v. Perlaza, 439 F.3d 1149 (9th Cir. 2006) (burden-shifting concerns reviewed for prejudice; isolated comments)
- Wein v. United States? (Weatherspoon), 410 F.3d 1142 (9th Cir. 2005) (prosecutorial comments urging conviction evaluated for prejudice)
- Santos v. United States, 553 U.S. 507 (U.S. 2008) (proceeds definition in money laundering; merger concerns)
- Webster v. United States, 623 F.3d 901 (9th Cir. 2010) (proceeds meaning in Santos context; governs 1956 interpretation)
- United States v. Boscarino, 437 F.3d 634 (7th Cir. 2006) (treatment of proceeds and bribes as money laundering proceeds)
- United States v. Adefehinti, 510 F.3d 319 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (conduit between underlying crime and laundering; concealment focus)
- Kilbride v. United States, 584 F.3d 1240 (9th Cir. 2009) (plain-error review for instructional errors)