United States v. Wright, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 55

Wright, Chawla, and Teitelman were convicted of honest services fraud, traditional mail fraud, and conspiracy; Skilling v. United States (2010) subsequently narrowed honest services fraud.
The scheme involved gifts to Wright (free apartment, free legal services, potential commissions) while Wright used his City Council staff position to aid World Acquisition Partners.
Wright facilitated city actions favorable to World Acquisition, including a mechanical parking ordinance, River City development efforts, and assisting in obtaining public information and certifications.
Teitelman provided most of the legal work for World Acquisition and actively solicited official acts from Wright; Chawla was involved in the real estate deal and knew of the gifts.
After trial, Skilling altered the legal landscape for honest services fraud, and the court vacated the honest services convictions and found spillover prejudicial to traditional mail fraud; case remanded for new trial.
The district court’s rulings on evidence, jury instructions, and sentencing are preserved for review on remand.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of honest services bribery evidence after Skilling	Wright/Chawla/Teitelman - bribery theory suffices	Defendants - evidence is insufficient under bribery theory post-Skilling	Yes, sufficient under bribery theory to sustain conviction on Count One, Conspiracy; but see remand for new trial on remanded counts
Error in jury instructions post-Skilling	Instruction improperly included conflict-of-interest theory	Conflict theory should have been excluded, bribery theory alone adequate	Erroneous instruction potentially affected verdict; convictions on honest services vacated and remanded for new trial
Prejudicial spillover from honest services to traditional mail fraud	Spillover evidence tainted traditional fraud conviction	Spillover limited impact; convictions still supportable	Spillover prejudicial; traditional mail fraud convictions vacated and remanded
Remand posture and impact on remaining counts	New trial required on all counts due to Skilling; spillover issues persist	Limited remand appropriate to address specific convictions	All four counts vacated; remanded for a new trial

Skilling v. United States, 563 U.S. _, 130 S. Ct. 2896 (2010) (limits honest services fraud to bribe/kickback theory; vagueness concerns with conflict theory)
Panarella, 277 F.3d 678 (3d Cir. 2002) (conflict-of-interest theory of honest services fraud upheld pre-Skilling)
Kemp, 500 F.3d 257 (3d Cir. 2007) (bribery requires quid pro quo; stream of benefits permissible)
Bryant, 655 F.3d 232 (3d Cir. 2011) (implied quid pro quo permissible in bribery theory)
Antico, 275 F.3d 245 (3d Cir. 2001) (intent can be inferred from conduct in conspiracy)
Rigas, 605 F.3d 194 (3d Cir. 2010) (elements of conspiracy include overt acts in furtherance of a quid pro quo)
Lee, 612 F.3d 170 (3d Cir. 2010) (review standard for sufficiency of evidence; substantial evidence standard)
Cross, 308 F.3d 308 (3d Cir. 2002) (test for admissibility of evidence in prejudicial spillover analysis)
Pelullo, 14 F.3d 881 (3d Cir. 1994) (framework for assessing prejudicial spillover factors)
Murphy, 323 F.3d 102 (3d Cir. 2003) (two-step test for prejudicial spillover and intertwined charges)
Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1 (1999) (materiality of false statements for mail fraud)
Yusuf, 536 F.3d 178 (3d Cir. 2008) (mail fraud timing and continuation of scheme; post-facto relevance)
Evans v. United States, 504 U.S. 255 (1992) (intent can be inferred from official acts and conduct)