United States v. Wright
936 F. Supp. 2d 538
E.D. Pa.2013Background
- Defendants Wright, Chawla, and Teitelman were convicted of conspiracy to commit honest-services fraud and other counts after a jury trial in a bribery/real-estate scheme.
- The Third Circuit vacated several convictions post-Skilling v. United States for overbreadth and ordered retrial on some counts.
- Defendants filed a joint Motion to Limit the Scope of Retrial seeking to exclude bribery theory, real-estate commissions, and certain overt acts from retrial.
- The court considered constructive-amendment, variance, and double-jeopardy/collateral-estoppel challenges to retrial scope.
- The court ruled on which issues could be relitigated, prohibiting relitigation of the $1,000 check, but allowing other overt acts and non-check issues to be retried.
- Significant discussion addressed whether the indictment adequately charged bribery theory and whether overt acts could be relitigated as part of conspiracy.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive amendment of indictment | Indictment adequately alleged bribery theory of honest-services fraud | Indictment language insufficient to charge bribery theory | Indictment satisfies Rule 7 and constitutional requirements; no constructive amendment |
| Potential real estate commissions as things of value | Commissions fall within conspiracy theory as overt acts | Risk of variance/constructive amendment if not expressly charged | Permitted as overt acts within conspiracy; not a fatal variance |
| Double jeopardy/collateral estoppel prevent relitigation | Non-check issues can be relitigated as overt acts | Jury necessarily decided lack of specific intent on non-check issues | Non-check issues may be relitigated as overt acts; collateral estoppel not bar |
| Relitigating the $1,000 check | Check related to conspiracy and bribery counts; may be used as overt act | Acquittal on related counts precludes relitigation | Precluded; $1,000 check cannot be relitigated |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. McKee, 506 F.3d 225 (3d Cir.2007) (indictment constructively amended if broadened beyond charging terms)
- United States v. Lee, 359 F.3d 194 (3d Cir.2004) (indictment must not alter charging terms during trial)
- United States v. Daraio, 445 F.3d 253 (3d Cir.2006) (variance vs. constructive amendment; prejudice considerations)
- United States v. Kemp, 500 F.3d 257 (3d Cir.2007) (indictment can rely on ‘stream of benefits’ bribery theory)
- United States v. Lynch, 807 F.Supp.2d 224 (E.D. Pa.2011) (indictment language must alert to bribery theory of honest-services fraud)
- United States v. Coughlin, 610 F.3d 89 (D.C.Cir.2010) (acquitted conduct and overt acts in conspiracy context)
- United States v. McGregor, 832 F.Supp.2d 1332 (M.D. Ala.2011) (multi-defendant honest-services case; overt acts and intent considerations)
- Dowling v. United States, 493 U.S. 342 (U.S.1989) (acquitted conduct and use in later proceedings related to conspiracy/over acts)
- Ashe v. Swenson, 398 U.S. 436 (U.S.1970) (collateral estoppel; juries may rely on different grounds for verdicts)