Archive
Please remember to use your browser's REFRESH button to
ensure you are veiwing the most recent version of the web page.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. Criminal No. 97-0335 (RMU) UNITED STATES
OPPOSITION AND INCORPORATED MEMORANDUM TO
DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISMISS
COUNTS 13-25 OF THE INDICTMENT FOR FAILURE
TO STATE AN OFFENSE OFFICE OF INDEPENDENT COUNSEL DONALD C. SMALTZ In Re Alphonso Michael (Mike) Espy 103 Oronoco Street, Suite 200 Alexandria, Virginia 22314 Phone:
(703) 706-0010 Fax:
(703) 706-0076 TABLE OF
CONTENTS
Page No. TABLE OF AUTHORITIES. . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii I.
INTRODUCTION 1 II.
THE GRATUITY STATUTE DOES NOT REQUIRE A NEXUS III.
CONCLUSION 12 TABLE
OF AUTHORITIES CASES United
States v. Alessio 528
F.2d 1079 (9th Cir. 1976)
10 United
States v. Anderson,
509 F.2d 312 (D.C. Cir. 1974)
11 United
States v. Anthony,
712 F.Supp. 112 (N.D. Ohio 1989) .6 United
States v. Baird, 29 F.3d 647 (D.C. Cir. 1994)
8 United
States v. Barash, 412
F.2d 26 (2d Cir. 1969)
10 United
States v. Biaggi, 853
F.2d 89 (2d Cir. 1988) 6 *United
States v. Brewster, 506 F.2d 62 (D.C. Cir. 1974)
2, 4, 6, 7, 8 United
States v. Bustamante,
45 F.3d 933 (5th Cir.), cert. denied,
116 S.Ct. 473 (1995)
8, 9 *United
States v. Campbell, 684 F.2d 141 (D.C. Cir. 1982)
2, 3 - 6 United
States v. Deutsch,
451 F.2d 98 (2d Cir. 1971)
6 *United
States v. Evans, 572 F.2d 455 (5th Cir. 1978)
7, 8, 10 United
States v. Gorman, 807
F.2d 1299 (6th Cir. 1986), cert. denied,
108 S.Ct. 68 (1987)
10 United
States v. Irwin, 354 F.2d 192 (2d Cir. 1965) 10 United
States v. Mariano,
983 F.2d 1150 (1st Cir. 1993)
6 United
States v. McDade, 827
F. Supp. 1153 (E.D. Pa. 1993), affd,
28 F.3d 283 (3rd Cir. 1994) 9 United
States v. Niederberger,
580 F.2d 63 (3rd Cir.), cert. denied,
99 S.Ct. 567 (1978)
9, 10 United
States v. Passman,
460 F.Supp. 912 (W.D. La. 1978) 6 *United
States v. Secord, 726 F.Supp. 845 (D.D.C. 1989)
6, 7, 8 *United
States v. Sun-Diamond Growers of California,
941 F.Supp. 1262 (D.D.C. 1996)
2, 12 STATUTES 18 U.S.C.
§ 201(a)(3)
11 18 U.S.C. §
201(c) 7, 9 18 U.S.C. §
201(c)(1)(A)
1, 2 18 U.S.C.
§201(c)(1)(B)
1, 4 18 U.S.C. §
201(g) 7, 8 OTHER
MATERIALS Campaign
Contributions and Federal Bribery Law, 92 Harv. L. Rev. 451, 455 (1978) .5 INTRODUCTION
This motion asks the court to dismiss every count of the Indictment brought under
the gratuity statute on the ground that the statute supposedly requires the Government to
pinpoint a specific, identified official act for which the gratuity was given. This is not the law. The statute by its terms only require that the
gratuity be given for or because of any official act, and the Indictment more
than adequately pleads this prerequisite. I.
I. I.THE GRATUITY STATUTE DOES NOT REQUIRE
A NEXUS I.
BETWEEN THE
GRATUITY AND A SPECIFIC OFFICIAL ACT
Defendant demands that this court rewrite the gratuity statute, 18 U.S.C.
§ 201(c)(1)(B), which requires that a gratuity be received for or because of any
official act, to require instead that the government demonstrate a nexus between the
gratuity and a specific identifiable official act.[1]
This result would run contrary to the decisions of every court that has considered
the issue (including this one) and would defeat the Congressional purpose behind the
statute.
Defendant correctly notes that United States v. Campbell, 684 F.2d 141 (D.C.
Cir. 1982) and United States v. Brewster, 506 F.2d 62 (D.C. Cir. 1974), are the
leading authorities in this circuit on the gratuities statute, but deliberately chooses to
misread them. Neither required the Government
to prove a nexus between the gratuity given and a specific official act, although Brewster
did establish a heightened threshold of inquiry for campaign contributions to an elected
official. (There must be more specific
knowledge of a definite official act for which the contributor intends to compensate
before an officials action crosses the line between guilt and innocence.) Id.,
506 F.2d at 81.
Indeed, Campbell shows quite clearly that the statute does not require a
nexus between the gratuity and a specific official act.
The public official in Campbell was a judge who gave a moving company
lenient treatment in the disposition of citations and who received assistance in moving his household furnishings from the same
company. 684 F.2d at 144. The jury instructions there required the jury to
find that the gratuity be given knowingly and willingly, and for or
because of an official act. Id.
at 150. Following conviction, Campbell
argued (as defendant argues here) that the trial court erred in not requiring the
jury to find that the gratuity was conferred with specific knowledge of a
definite official action for which compensation was intended. Id. at 149.
The Court of Appeals, however, rejected this argument, holding that under the
statute it was sufficient for the jury to find that the giver of the gratuity was merely
seeking or rewarding lenient treatment from the judge. Id. at 150.
Despite this clear holding, defendant insists that Campbell requires the
Government to establish a nexus between the gratuity and a specific official act. (Memorandum in Support at pp. 5-6). It makes this argument through a circuitous (and
totally inaccurate) reading of two footnotes to the decision. Specifically, footnote 13 states that cash
payments to defendant allegedly began before he was a judge, at a time when he was an
Assistant Corporation Counsel sympathetic to the trucking industry. Footnote 14 observes that the indictment alleges
only overt acts by the defendant while he was a judge.
It goes on to state and this is what defendant sees as the telling point
that [i]t is not . . . clear which acts of [defendant]
could have been the basis for . . . gratuities prior to 1973 [i.e., while
he was Assistant Corporation Counsel], because sympathy to trucking interests
does not constitute an official act. Id.
at 149, n.14.
These footnotes do not undercut the square holding of the Campbell decision. They merely state that the record failed to show
that an Assistant Corporation Counsel was, like a judge, in a position to perform official
acts to benefit a trucking company. There
was, in other words, no demonstration that the moving company had issues before the
Assistant Corporation Counsel the way it did before the judge. In contrast, Campbell as a judge was able to give
a trucking company lenient treatment, so that a gratuity could be found to be for or
because of any official act even though no nexus between the gratuity and a specific
official act could be shown.
As the Campbell decision specifically notes, this holding is entirely
consistent with the Brewster decision. Brewster
concerned campaign contributions to a Senator, and, as defendant is quick to point out,
the court there held that, in those circumstances, [t]here must be more specific
knowledge of a definite official act for which the contributor intends to compensate
before an officials action crosses the line between guilt and innocence. 506 F.2d at 81.
This means, defendant contends, that any prosecution under
§ 201(c)(1)(B) requires the Government to show a nexus between the gratuity and a
specific official act.
The defendant in Campbell made precisely the same argument, and the Court of
Appeals rejected it:
Based on [Brewster], appellants here urge that the trial court erred in not
requiring the jury to find that the gratuity was conferred with specific knowledge
of a definite official action for which compensation was intended. . . . . . . . . . .
Appellants argument reveals a fundamental misconception of the gratuity
statute and an overreading of Brewster. . . . The hard question in Brewster involved
distinguishing illegal gratuities from innocent campaign contributions. . . . . . . . . . .
We must therefore conclude that appellants have taken Brewster entirely out
of context in suggesting that it was insufficient for the [giver of the gratuity] to seek
or reward lenient treatment from Judge Campbell. . . .
It was more than sufficient in this case for the trial court to require that the
alleged gratuities be given and received knowingly and willingly, and for
or because of an official act. 684 F.2d at 150.[2]
The Campbell and Brewster decisions consequently compel the
conclusion that the gratuity statute does not require the identification of a specific
official act for which the gratuity is given or accepted.
Likewise, the other authorities upon which defendant relies require that the
gratuity be for an official act, but not necessarily for a specific, identified
official act. See United States v.
Mariano, 983 F.2d 1150, 1159 (1st Cir. 1993); United States v. Deutsch, 451
F.2d 98, 112 (2d Cir. 1971); United States v. Biaggi, 853 F.2d 89, 96-100 (2d Cir.
1988); United States v. Anthony, 712 F.Supp. 112, 116 (N.D. Ohio 1989); United
States v. Passman, 460 F.Supp. 912, 915 (W.D. La. 1978).
Subsequent to Brewster and Campbell, this court in United States
v. Secord, 726 F. Supp. 845 (D.D.C. 1989) confronted the same issue. In that case,
General Secord was charged with giving gratuities, including money and a security
system, to Lt. Col. Oliver North. The defense
theory was that involvement by other high government officials would have made it less
likely that General Secord would "thank" Colonel North by providing him with
gratuities, since Colonel North would have
been committed to the project anyway. In
rejecting the defense's argument, the Court ruled that the focus of the statute is
not on any particular transactions or dealings, 726 F. Supp. at 847 (emphasis
added), and that what made the gratuities illegal was both the recipients official
position and his ability to refer deals to the giver.
Id. Here, likewise, the
Indictment alleges that defendant as the Secretary of Agriculture held a position of
authority that allowed him to perform official acts to the benefit of the gratuity donors.
Campbell, Brewster, and Secord are consistent with other
circuit courts' interpretations of Section 201(c) to the effect that no nexus need be
shown between the value conferred on the appointed official, and any particular act by
that official. For example, in United
States v. Evans, 572 F.2d 455 (5th Cir.), defendant, an official employed by the
Department of Health, Education and Welfare, was convicted of accepting gratuities in the
form of cash payments from a company engaged in the collection of delinquent student
loans. On appeal, Evans sought
reversal of his conviction on the ground that the government failed to prove that
the money and compensation were received for an actual official act. Id. at 479.
The Court flatly rejected this argument that it was not necessary that the
official actually engage in identifiable conduct or misconduct, nor that any specific quid
pro quo be contemplated by the parties nor even that the official actually be capable
of providing some official act as quid pro quo at the time. Id. Respecting
the donee's intent in accepting the gratuity, the Court explained: [U]nder the unlawful gratuity
subsection all that need be proven is that the official accepted, because of his position,
a thing of value otherwise than as provided by law for the proper discharge of
official duty. . . . Thus, Section 201(g) makes it criminal for a public official
to accept a thing of value to which he is not lawfully entitled, regardless of the intent
of the donor or donee. Id. at 480 (citation and
quotations omitted; emphasis added).[3]
More recently, in United States v. Bustamante, 45 F.3d 933, 940 (5th Cir.), cert.
denied, 116 S.Ct. 473 (1995), the Fifth Circuit upheld the conviction of a member of
Congress for accepting an illegal gratuity from a broadcasting company.[4]
Citing Secord with approval, the Bustamante Court explained the
requirements of a gratuity prosecution as follows: To find a public official guilty of
accepting an illegal gratuity, a jury must find that the official accepted, because
of his position, a thing of value otherwise than provided by law for the proper
discharge of official duty. Evans, 572 F.2d at 480. Generally, no proof of a quid pro quo is
required; it is sufficient for the government to show that the defendant was given the
gratuity simply because he held public office. Id. at 479; United States v. Secord, 726 F.
Supp. 845, 847 (D.D.C. 1989) (sufficient for government to show that gratuity was given
simply because of [a person's] official position, in appreciation of their
relationship, or in anticipation of its continuation). In addition, the jury need
not find that the official accepted the gratuity with the intent to be influenced. The jury must only conclude that the evidence
establishes beyond a reasonable doubt that the official accepted unauthorized compensation. Evans, 572 F.2d at 480. Bustamante, 45 F.3d at 940
(emphasis added).
The Bustamante court then concluded that the jury was entitled to find that Bustamante
received the gratuity because of his status as a Congressman since he was
asked to participate in the investment relating to the license after his election was
assured, and he brought no broadcasting experience, financial support, or minority benefit
to the enterprise. Id. at 941; see
United States v. McDade, 827 F. Supp. 1153 (E.D. Pa. 1993), affd, 28
F.3d 283 (3d Cir. 1994).
Every circuit that has considered the issue has allowed gratuities prosecutions to
proceed without the identification of a specific official act for which the gratuity was
given. See, for example, United States v.
Niederberger, 580 F.2d 63 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 99 S.Ct. 567 (1978): [W]e find it unnecessary for the
Government to allege in an indictment charging a [§ 201(c)] offense that a gratuity
received by a public official was, in any way, generated by some specific, identifiable
act performed or to be performed by the official. A
quid pro quo is simply foreign to the elements of a subsection [(c)] offense. What is proscribed, simply put, is a public
officials receipt of a gratuity, to which he was not legally entitled, given to him
in the course of his everyday activities, for or because of any official act performed or
to be performed by such public official, and he was in a position to use his authority in
a manner which could affect the gift-giver. Id. at 68-69. See also United States v. Alessio 528 F.2d
1079 (9th Cir. 1976) (offense found where son of prisoner gave gratuities to prison
administrator, but particular beneficial acts toward prisoner not specified); United
States v. Barash, 412 F.2d 26, 29 (2d Cir. 1969) (offense can be found for gifts to
IRS agents where intent was to create a better working environment or show appreciation
for a speedy audit.) As the Court observed in
United States v. Gorman, 807 F.2d 1299, 1304 (6th Cir. 1986), cert. denied
108 S.Ct. 68 (1987), the purpose of the [gratuity statute] is to reach all
situations in which a government agent's judgment concerning his official duties may be
clouded by the receipt of an item of value given to him by reason of his position. In other words, [e]ven if corruption is not
intended by the donor or the donee, there is still a tendency in such a situation to
provide conscious or unconscious preferential treatment of the donor by the donee, or the
inefficient management of public affairs. Evans,
572 F.2d at 480. Accord, United
States v. Irwin, 354 F.2d 192, 196 (2d Cir. 1965).
Defendants narrow reading of the statute, which would criminalize gratuities
given for specific official acts but not for general official acts, runs counter to the
plain meaning of the words Congress chose in enacting the statute: The statute speaks not of definite, identifiable
official acts, but of any official act performed or to be performed, where an
official act is defined as any decision or action . . . which may at any time be
pending, or which may by law be brought before any public official. 18 U.S.C. § 201(a)(3). Under the statute a gratuity would be, and should
be, no less illegal simply because the official acts that might affect the donor cannot be
identified with specificity.
Defendants reading of the statute also defies the Congressional purpose
behind the statute. The D.C. Circuit court
noted that purpose in United States v. Anderson, 509 F.2d 312 (D.C. Cir. 1974) (the
companion case to Brewster): Congress has decided that bribery and
kindred practices imperil the very nature of democratic government. It has legislated a vigorous attack on those
practices. 509 F.2d at 333 (holding that separate
bribes merit separate sentences). The court
should not now retreat from that characterization to indulge defendants position
that a gratuity given for official acts in general is somehow less offensive to public
integrity than a gratuity given for a specific official act.
Finally, in the related case United States v. Sun-Diamond Growers of California,
941 F.Supp. 1262 (D.D.C. 1996), which concerned many of the same gratuities that are at
issue here, this Court correctly recognized that the gratuities statute does not require
the government to identify a nexus between the gratuity and a specific identifiable
official act. Defendant stridently urges the
Court to undo that decision, but, as the foregoing discussion makes obvious, it correctly
stated the law.
The indictment alleges that defendant sought, solicited, received, and
accepted gifts, gratuities, and things of value from corporations and individuals
seeking official action by, doing or seeking to do business with, and conducting
activities regulated by USDA. (Indictment
at ¶ 7). Defendant was the senior
official in charge of the USDA. (Id.
at ¶ 2). Nothing more is required to
show that the gratuities defendant received were for or because of any official act
performed or to be performed by defendant. I.
I.
CONCLUSION
The law requires that a gratuity be given for or because of any official act,
and the Indictment more than adequately alleges this element. There is no requirement, as defendant would have
it, that the Government allege a nexus between the gratuities and a specific identified
official act. The motion to dismiss should
accordingly be denied. Dated:
November 20, 1997
Respectfully submitted, OFFICE OF INDEPENDENT COUNSEL In Re Alphonso Michael (Mike) Espy
Donald C. Smaltz, Independent Counsel William F. Fahey Roscoe C. Howard Charles M. Kagay
Adrienne R. Baron 103 Oronoco Street, Suite 200 Alexandria, Virginia 22314 Phone:
(703) 706-0010 Fax:
(703) 706-0076
[1]18
U.S.C. § 201(c)(1)(B) specifically provides: Whoever -- being a public official, former public
official, or person selected to be a public official, otherwise than as
provided by law for the proper discharge of official duty, directly or
indirectly demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept
anything of value personally for or because of any official act performed or to be
performed by such official or person -- shall be fined under this
title,...
Section 201(c)(1)(B), as distinguished from Section 201(c)(1)(A), of Title 18
focuses on the receiver of illegal gratuities.
18 U.S.C. § 201(c)(1)(A), as in the case of United States v. Sun-Diamond
Growers of California, 941 F.Supp. 1262 (D.D.C. 1996), relates to instances where
illegal gratuities are given to a public official.
Section 201(c)(1)(A) provides: Whoever -- directly or indirectly gives, offers, or
promises anything of value to any public official, former public official, or
person selected to be a public official, for or because of any official act
performed or to be performed by such public official, former public
official, or person selected to be a public official -- shall be fined under
this title,... [2]The
different implications resulting when a charged gratuity is also a campaign contribution
were examined in Campaign Contributions and Federal Bribery Law, 92 Harv. L. Rev. 451, 455
(1978) (footnote omitted): As applied to nonelected officials, the bribery and
gratuity standards conform to logical inferences about what constitutes corrupt conduct. Such officials properly receive their sole
compensation from the government as provided by law; they run no campaigns that require
additional funds. Any money they receive from
other parties is, therefore, suspect. Under
the gratuity provisions, this absence of a legitimate use justifies a standard close to
strict liability for acceptance of payment by nonelected officials. [3]It
is noteworthy that in United States v. Baird, 29 F.3d 647, 652 (D.C. Cir. 1994),
the D.C. Circuit quoted with approval the holding of Evans, upon which the district
court in Secord relied, that [t]he gravamen of each offense [gratuity and
conflict of interest], then, is not an intent to be corrupted or influenced, but simply
the acceptance of an unauthorized compensation. [4]Although
this case involved an elected official, the gratuities were not campaign contributions. Bustamante is thus consistent with Brewster,
which requires a heightened nexus between the gifts and the official acts for campaign
contributions to elected officials.
|