The Supreme Court’s decision in Skilling v. United States fundamentally altered the landscape of 18 U.S.C. § 1346 honest services fraud and public corruption prosecutions. Cases and clients at every stage of the criminal adjudication process are affected by the Skilling decision and the uncertain state of law. Meanwhile, the Department of Justice and other organizations are lobbying for a Skilling-fix. NACDL opposes such a fix and any attempts to restore a limitless honest service fraud statute.

DOJ has had mixed success in the prosecution of traders. Where is the dividing line between illegal activity and savvy trading? Susan Brune and Erin Dougherty review the major categories of recent prosecutions and highlight the key issues that have presented obstacles to conviction – and opportunities for the defense.

Few areas in the white collar world are in as much upheaval as law and practice under the federal honest services statute, but public corruption investigations continue at a quick pace. The authors provide practical suggestions about how to shape and present a defense – from a theory of the case and in limine motions to jury instructions and post-trial advocacy.

The Bridgegate Scandal, as Kelly v. United States grew to be called, spawned from political power, greed and revenge, and resulted in the deterioration of public trust. The actions of the defendants, however, were not criminal.

Sentencing Memorandum Opinion, United States v. Kevin A. Ring, No. 08-CR-274 (D.D.C. September 20, 2011)

All three defendants were convicted of conspiracy (18 USC § 371); mail, wire and honest services fraud (18 USC §§ 1341, 1343, 1346); and bribery (18 USC 666). In addition, Minor was convicted of RICO (18 USC §1962). The Fifth Circuit vacated all convictions related to bribery and conspiracy to commit bribery. The court affirmed all remaining convictions. Each defendant filed a Petition for A Writ of Certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Argument: On October 4, 2010, the Supreme Court denied Minor's Petition and, in response, District Court Judge Wingate scheduled resentencing for all three defendants on November 17, 2010. Minor filed a motion to vacate with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Missippi on December 17, 2010. The Government opposed that motion on January 7, 2011.

The Supreme Court’s decision in Skilling v. United States fundamentally altered the landscape of 18 U.S.C. § 1346 honest services fraud prosecutions. Cases and clients at every stage of the criminal adjudication process are affected by the Skilling decision. This bank is a compilation of post-Skilling honest services fraud filings and court decisions. Materials in this bank are sorted below by case name. Each case has its own page containing basic case information and procedural history, attorneys’ names, and all the filings we have obtained from the case.

Defendants were facing third trial when the prosecutors dismissed the case in light of Skilling. On August 20, 2010, U.S. District Court Judge Julie Robinson granted the government’s request to dismiss the 2003 and 2004 indictments against Wittig and Lake.

The First Circuit affirmed Urciuoli's conviction, after the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Skilling, on the basis of Skilling itself and other grounds. The Court held that “this case is the core bribery offense preserved by Skilling.”

Victoria L. Sprouse was convicted on a variety of charges, including conspiracy with multiple objects, mail fraud, bank fraud, and money laundering. The fraud and related conspiracy counts were alleged as money-and-property fraud and, alternatively, as honest services fraud. She was convicted on 18 of 19 counts and sentenced. The District Court ordered filings on the impact of Skilling.

Spellissy was convicted on five counts, including one count of conspiracy to commit bribery, wire fraud and honest-services fraud. Of the other counts, the District Court either granted a post-trial motion for judgment of acquitted (bribery) or motion for a new trial (substantive wire fraud offenses). Spellissy exhausted his direct appellate rights, as well as, the collateral remedies provided by 28 U.S.C. §2255. He also completed his supervised release and is not currently serving any portion of his sentence.

Argument: In light of the Skilling decision, Spellissy petitioned for a writ of error coram nobis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a), the All Writs Act, on this remaining conspiracy count. On December 29, 2010, the Court denied Spellissy's petition. Spellissy is appealing the denial to the 11th Circuit.

On August 16, 2011, the 11th Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision to deny Spellissy's petition for a writ of error coram nobis pursuant to the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. 1651(a).  The court determined that Spellissy's conviction was not based on the "conflict of interest" or "self-dealing" theories of honest services fraud since the jury was instructed on both bribery and wire fraud.  Also, even if an error occurred, it was harmless and didn't have a "substantial and injurious effect" on the jury's verdict.  

On March 22, 2013, the 11th Circuit affirmed the decision from the Middle District of Florida that the court did not err when it denied Spellissy's petition for writ of error coram nobis.  Spellissy failed to demonstrate that the district court abused its discretion.

Defendants filed their 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Petitions in February 2010 and the court stayed further proceedings until after the Supreme Court decided Skilling. Briefing was completed on September 30, 2010.  On November 7, 2011, the district court denied petitioner’s motion, holding that they engaged in a single fraudulent scheme to award City jobs and promotions to political supporters and that petitioners necessarily deprived the City of its property rights. 

Argument: Thus, the erroneous honest services jury instructions were harmless in light of government’s alternative theory of money-property fraud.  Defendant’s appealed.  On February 27, 2013 the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s decision and held that constitutional error in jury’s receipt of honest services theory of mail fraud was harmless.