United States v. William Jefferson
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 6160
| 4th Cir. | 2012Background
- Jefferson, a nine-term Louisiana congressman, was convicted in the Eastern District of Virginia on eleven counts involving bribery, honest services wire fraud, money laundering, and RICO.
- Indictment charged schemes with iGate, Arkel, Melton-TDC, Wilson-Creaghan, and International Petroleum; involved payments to Jefferson and family through shell entities.
- District court ruled on venue and official-act questions in Jefferson II and III, clarifying that official acts may include settled practices and need not be statutory; personal travel and meetings were framed as official acts.
- Trial evidence showed Jefferson used congressional staff, travel, and letterhead to promote schemes abroad, solicit bribes, and channel payments through ANJ, W2-IBBS, IBBS, and related entities.
- Count 10 (wire fraud) involved a transcontinental telephone call; Jefferson contends venue was improper because essential conduct occurred outside the Eastern District of Virginia.
- On appeal, the court vacated Count 10 venue but affirmed the remaining convictions; Skilling v. United States is invoked to limit self-dealing theory in some counts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Definition of official act | Jefferson argues Birdsall/settled-practice scope improper | Jefferson argues Sun-Diamond limits settled-practice approach | Official act instruction affirmed; Birdsall-based scope remains valid |
| Quid pro quo element scope | Jefferson says as-needed basis violates quid pro quo | Government may prove ongoing course of conduct | Quid pro quo must be linked to ongoing exchange; ongoing conduct allowed |
| Self-dealing / Skilling impact on honest services | Skilling repudiates self-dealing theory; must vacate | Skilling narrows only self-dealing; bribery theory still valid | Skilling error on Count 2 harmless; bribery theory sustains Counts 3,4 and related counts |
| Venue for Count 10 wire fraud | Venue proper where scheme devised and executed | Venue requires conduct in the district where essential act occurred | Count 10 venue improper in the Eastern District of Virginia; vacated and remanded |
| Overall sufficiency of evidence for remaining counts | Evidence supports bribery and related offenses | Challenged theories collapse under Skilling | Convictions affirmed except Count 10; remanded for Count 10 proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Birdsall, 233 U.S. 223 (Supreme Court 1914) (official act may be grounded in settled practice, not statutory text)
- Sun-Diamond Growers of California, 526 U.S. 398 (Supreme Court 1999) (limits on illegal gratuity; linked to official act definition for context)
- Valdes v. United States, 475 F.3d 1319 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (limits of 'official act' scope; reliance on Sun-Diamond and Birdsall)
- United States v. Biaggi, 853 F.2d 89 (2d Cir. 1988) (official acts encompass actions within official duties not statutorily prescribed)
- United States v. Rodriguez-Moreno, 526 U.S. 275 (Supreme Court 1999) (venue approach when offense has multiple parts; determine where conduct occurred)
- United States v. Pace, ??? (4th Cir. 2003) (venue principles for wire/mail fraud; acts constituting offense)
- Ramirez, 420 F.3d 134 (2d Cir. 2005) (essential conduct element in wire fraud; venue tied to wire transmission)
- Hedgpeth v. Pulido, 555 U.S. 57 (Supreme Court 2008) (harmless-error review when alternative theories exist)
- Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1 (Supreme Court 1999) (Yates alternative-theory harmlessness standard)
- Yates v. United States, 354 U.S. 298 (Supreme Court 1957) (harmlessness review for alternative-theory errors)