United States v. William Mitchell, Jr.
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 11932
| 6th Cir. | 2012Background
- William Mitchell, Jr. was charged with conspiracy to commit bribery and bribery concerning programs receiving federal funds tied to a scheme paying Cuyahoga County officials via the VAS contract.
- AMDZ partners formed Valuation Advisory Services, Inc. (VAS) to channel and conceal bribes for appraisal work with Frank Russo and Klimkowski.
- Bribes were routed through monthly cash payments to Russo via Klimkowski, with the partners sharing profits through AMDZ’s draw system.
- Damiani led the scheme; after his death Zaccagnini continued the scheme and payments to Klimkowski and Russo.
- Mitchell testified to limited knowledge and participation; co-conspirators pleaded guilty or testified against him.
- The district court instructed the jury on deliberate ignorance; Mitchell was convicted on conspiracy and bribery counts and sentenced to 97 months plus restitution.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Deliberate ignorance instruction proper here? | Mitchell argues the instruction risked misleading the jury. | Government says instruction accurately stated law and addressed evidence. | Instruction not reversible; upheld. |
| Procedural reasonableness of sentencing? | Mitchell argues departure/variance grounds were ignored; 5H1.6 issue. | Court can exercise discretion; adequately explained reasoning. | No reversible procedural error. |
| Disparity with co-conspirators justified? | Mitchell claims unwarranted disparity vs. Armstrong and Zaccagnini. | Court accounted for cooperation and adjusted range to avoid disparity. | District court did not abuse discretion. |
| Substantive reasonableness of within-guidelines sentence? | Mitchell contends excessive weight on lack of remorse and responsibility. | Court weighed factors appropriately and imposed high end within-range sentence. | Sentence substantively reasonable. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Mari, 47 F.3d 782 (6th Cir. 1995) (deliberate-ignorance instruction used sparingly; caution against convicting on negligence)
- United States v. Geisen, 612 F.3d 471 (6th Cir. 2010) (deliberate ignorance instruction appropriate only when evidence supports it)
- United States v. Rayborn, 491 F.3d 513 (6th Cir. 2007) (harmless error if basis exists for conviction on alternate grounds)
- United States v. Puckett, 422 F.3d 340 (6th Cir. 2005) (procedural review of departures; not reviewable absence of departure)
- Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (2007) (explanation required for sentence; context of appellate review)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (procedural and substantive reasonableness framework; deference to district court)
- United States v. Simmons, 501 F.3d 620 (6th Cir. 2007) (consideration of disparities among co-conspirators)
- United States v. Swafford, 639 F.3d 265 (6th Cir. 2011) (within-guidelines sentence and 3553(a) factors; disparity not controlling)