United States v. McDonough, 1st Cir. (2013)

7/26/2019 United States v. McDonough, 1st Cir. (2013)

1/48

United States Court of AppealsFor the First Circuit

Nos. 11- 2130 11- 2163

UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA,

Appel l ee,

v.

RI CHARD W. MCDONOUGH and SALVATORE F. DI MASI ,

Def endant s, Appel l ant s.

APPEALS FROM THE UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURTFOR THE DI STRI CT OF MASSACHUSETTS

[ Hon. Mar k L. Wol f , U. S. Di st r i ct J udge]

Bef or e

Howar d, Ci r cui t J udge,Sout er , * Associ at e J ust i ce,and Li pez, Ci r cui t J udge.

Mar t i n G. Wei nberg, wi t h whomKi mber l y Homan was on br i ef , f orappel l ant Ri chard W. McDonough.

Thomas R. Ki l ey, wi t h whom Wi l l i am J . Ci ntol o and Cosgr ove,Ei senber g & Ki l ey, P. C. wer e on br i ef , f or appel l ant Sal vat or e F.Di Masi .

J ohn- Al ex Romano, At t or ney, Appel l at e Sect i on Cr i mi nalDi vi si on, Uni t ed St at es Depar t ment of J ust i ce, wi t h whomCar men M.Or t i z, Uni t ed St at es At t or ney, S. Theodor e Mer r i t t , Kr i st i na E.Bar cl ay, Assi st ant Uni t ed St at es At t or neys, Lanny A. Br euer ,

Assi st ant At t or ney Gener al and J ohn D. Bur et t a, Deput y Assi st antAt t or ney Gener al , wer e on br i ef , f or appel l ee.

*Hon. Davi d H. Sout er , Associ at e J ust i ce ( Ret . ) of t he Supr emeCour t of t he Uni t ed St at es, si t t i ng by desi gnat i on.


2/48

August 21, 2013


3/48

HOWARD, Circuit Judge. Af t er a s i x- week t r i al , a j ur y i n

t he Di st r i ct of Massachuset t s convi ct ed Sal vat or e F. Di Masi , t he

f ormer Speaker of t he Massachuset t s House of Repr esent at i ves, and

Ri char d W. McDonough, a l obbyi st , of numer ous cr i mes r esul t i ng f r om

a scheme to f unnel money t o Di Masi i n exchange f or pol i t i cal

f avor s. A t hi r d al l eged par t i ci pant , Di Masi ' s f r i end and f i nanci al

advi sor Ri char d Vi t al e, was acqui t t ed. A f our t h, J oseph Lal l y,

pl ed gui l t y and cooperated wi t h t he government . The basi c cont our s

of t he scheme saw Lal l y, as an empl oyee of one company and l at er as

a pr i nci pal i n anot her , make payment s t o Di Masi , who i n r et ur n t ook

of f i ci al act i ons i n hi s r ol e as House Speaker t o benef i t Lal l y' s

busi ness concer ns. The money was f unnel ed t o Di Masi t hr ough

McDonough, Vi t al e and St even Topazi o, an at t orney who shared a l aw

pr act i ce wi t h Di Masi and who was not cr i mi nal l y char ged.

The di st r i ct cour t deni ed Di Masi ' s and McDonough' s post -

t r i al mot i ons and subsequent l y sent enced t hem t o ni net y- si x and

ei ght y- f our mont hs' i mpr i sonment , r espect i vel y. On appeal , each of

t hem advances a panopl y of ar gument s t hat f al l i nt o f our gener al

cat egor i es: 1) suf f i ci ency of t he evi dence; 2) j ur y i nst r uct i ons;

3) evi dent i ar y i ssues; and 4) sent enci ng. Af t er consi der i ng t he

extensi ve ar gument s of abl e counsel , we af f i r mt he convi ct i ons and

sent ences.

-3-


4/48

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

To t he ext ent t hat t he appel l ant s asser t cl ai ms of

i nsuf f i ci ent evi dence, we descr i be t he f act s i n t he l i ght most

f avor abl e t o t he j ur y' s ver di ct . Uni t ed St at es v. Ur ci ol i , 613

F. 3d 11, 13 ( 1st Ci r . 2010) ( "Ur ci ol i I I ") . We f i r st out l i ne t he

sal i ent f act s under l yi ng t he convi ct i ons, addi ng mor e det ai l s l at er

as necessar y.

A st at e repr esent at i ve si nce 1979, Di Masi was el ect ed

Speaker of t he Massachuset t s House of Repr esent at i ves i n Sept ember

2004. He was al so a pr act i ci ng at t or ney, but as hi s l egi sl at i ve

and pol i t i cal r esponsi bi l i t i es i ncreased, hi s i ncome f r om hi s l aw

pr act i ce decl i ned and hi s personal debt gr ew. Bot h McDonough and

Vi t al e wer e l ong- st andi ng f r i ends of Di Masi .

Unt i l Febr uar y 2006, Lal l y was a Vi ce Presi dent of Cognos

Cor por at i on, an i nt er nat i onal sof t war e company. Lal l y was t he head

of Cognos' s l obbyi ng ar m, t he ai mof whi ch was t o boost t he sal e of

Cognos sof t war e t o st at e and l ocal gover nment s. Af t er l eavi ng

Cognos i n 2006, Lal l y f or med Mont val e Sol ut i ons, a r esel l er of

Cognos sof t ware, f or whi ch Mont val e was pai d a twent y percent

commi ssi on. Lal l y and Di Masi wer e not st r anger s, as Di Masi had

pr evi ousl y r epr esent ed Lal l y i n a cr i mi nal mat t er and al so at t ended

hi s weddi ng. Cognos was one of McDonough' s l obbyi ng cl i ent s. He

assi st ed Lal l y i n gai ni ng access t o t he gover nment of f i ci al s who

woul d make deci si ons about sof t ware pur chases and f undi ng.

-4-


5/48

I n December 2004, McDonough t ol d Lal l y t hat he was

l ooki ng f or a way t o suppl ement Di Masi ' s i ncome. He suggest ed t hat

Lal l y have Cognos hi r e Di Masi ' s l aw par t ner Topazi o and pay hi m a

mont hl y r et ai ner , a por t i on of whi ch woul d be t r ansf er r ed t o Di Masi

under t he auspi ces of t he l awyer s' exi st i ng f ee- shar i ng

ar r angement . Di Masi subsequent l y t ol d Topazi o t hat McDonough woul d

soon be r ef er r i ng a new cl i ent t o hi m. Lat er i n December ,

McDonough and Lal l y met wi t h Topazi o, wher eupon they agr eed that

Cognos woul d r etai n Topazi o f or si x mont hs at a rate of $5000 per

mont h. Al t hough Topazi o' s l egal pr act i ce was f ocused on r eal

est ate mat t ers and cr i mi nal and personal i nj ur y cases, McDonough

expl ai ned t hat Cognos woul d be hi r i ng hi mf or cont r act wor k rel at ed

t o Cognos sof t war e. Lal l y t est i f i ed t hat he agr eed t o t he "sham"

cont r act i n order t o " f unnel money" t o Di Masi and t hat he was

t r yi ng t o "gai n f avor wi t h t he Speaker , t o have hi m hel p us cl ose

sof t war e, cut deal s, and obt ai n f undi ng f or us. "

Af t er t he deal was st r uck, McDonough t ol d Lal l y that i t

was i mpor t ant f or Lal l y and Cognos t o " f i nd somet hi ng f or [ ]

Topazi o t o do t o sor t of cover [ t hei r ] ass i f somet hi ng ever [ ] bl ew

up. " As Lal l y had aut hor i t y onl y t o hi r e l obbyi st s, he t ol d

McDonough t hat he woul d hi r e Topazi o f or t hat f unct i on, r at her t han

l awyer i ng, i n or der t o ensure t hat t he hi r e woul d be appr oved by

Cognos. Topazi o r ecei ved a si x- mont h cont r act f r omCognos i n Mar ch

2005, but was sur pr i sed t o see that i t was a l obbyi ng cont r act , not

-5-


6/48

one f or l egal ser vi ces as had been di scussed at t hei r ear l i er

meet i ng. When Topazi o made f ur t her i nqui r i es, Lal l y pr esent ed i t

t o hi mas a "t ake i t or l eave i t " pr oposi t i on. Topazi o al so cal l ed

Di Masi , who i nst r uct ed hi mt o si gn t he cont r act , r at her t han "scr ew

up" t he ar r angement by at t empt i ng t o negot i at e terms wi t h Lal l y.

Topazi o compl i ed.

As pr ovi ded by the cont r act , Topazi o recei ved t he f i r st

$5000 payment f r om Cognos i n ear l y Apr i l 2005. Compl yi ng wi t h

Di Masi ' s demand, Topazi o pai d $4000 t o Di Masi as a ref er r al f ee, a

f i gur e t hat was hi gher t han t hei r t ypi cal f ee- shar i ng ar r angement ,

al t hough Topazi o subsequent l y rever t ed t o spl i t t i ng t he payment

evenl y wi t h Di Masi . The cont r act was renewed t hr ee t i mes, wi t h

Topazi o r ecei vi ng $125, 000 f r omCognos and t r ansf er r i ng $65, 000 t o

Di Masi . At one poi nt i n t i me, Cognos f ai l ed t o make sever al of t he

$5000 payment s t o Topazi o and "caught up" wi t h one payment of

$25, 000, whi ch Di Masi demanded f r om Topazi o i n i t s ent i r et y.

Di Masi r etur ned Topazi o' s $25, 000 check, however , and r equest ed

t hat he send f our smal l er checks, whi ch Topazi o di d. At no poi nt

dur i ng t he t i me t hat Topazi o was under cont r act di d Cognos, Lal l y,

or McDonough ask hi m t o per f orm any work.

I n 2005, at r oughl y t he same t i me as t he Lal l y- McDonough-

Topazi o deal was bei ng f i nal i zed, t he Massachuset t s Depar t ment of

Educat i on ( "DOE") r equest ed pr oposal s f or a pi l ot pr ogr amknown as

Educat i on Data Warehouse ( "EDW") , t hat woul d empl oy sof t ware t o

-6-


7/48

aggr egat e DOE dat a f r om mul t i pl e dat abases i nt o a si ngl e f or mat .

The DOE' s pl an was t o spread t he EDWpr oj ect st at ewi de, event ual l y.

Cognos want ed to pr ocur e bot h the pi l ot and st at ewi de cont r act s,

f r omwhi ch Lal l y woul d recei ve commi ss i ons on payment s t o Cognos.

Cognos submi t t ed a $5 mi l l i on bi d, wi t h $500, 000 f or t he

sof t war e r el at i ng t o t he pi l ot pr ogr am and t he r emai ni ng $4. 5

mi l l i on t ar get ed at t he st at ewi de pr oj ect i f t he pi l ot pr ogr am

pr oved successf ul . Cognos was awar ded t he pi l ot pr oj ect i n August

2005, but t he st at ewi de pr oj ect woul d r equi r e l egi sl at i ve f undi ng.

Lal l y t hen i mpr essed upon McDonough t he i mport ance of "get [ t i ng] t o

t he Speaker [ t o] get f undi ng f or t hi s pr oj ect t hat DOE want ed. "

Lal l y al so "r emi nded" McDonough of t he r el at i onshi p wi t h Topazi o,

t el l i ng hi m t hat " i t was t i me f or i t t o pay of f . " McDonough

r esponded wi t h a pr omi se t o cont act Di Masi .

Pr i or t o t he awar d of t he pi l ot cont r act , Di Masi and

McDonough di scussed wi t h Lal l y t he pr ospect of Di Masi speaki ng wi t h

DOE Commi ss i oner Davi d Dr i scol l on Cognos' s behal f . Among t he

i ssues t hat Lal l y want ed Di Masi t o r ai se wi t h Dr i scol l was t he

cl ai mt hat a Cognos compet i t or had pr ovi ded a poor sof t ware pr oduct

f or t he st at e t r i al cour t syst em. I n Oct ober 2005, af t er t he pi l ot

pr oj ect awar d, Dr i scol l spoke wi t h Di Masi about l egi sl at i on t o f und

t he st at ewi de pr oj ect . Di Masi caut i oned Dr i scol l not t o choose

"t he company t hat scr ewed up t he cour t s. " When Dr i scol l t ol d

Di Masi t hat he thought t hat Cognos woul d be sel ected, Di Masi

-7-


8/48

expr essed t hat he "was f i ne wi t h t hat " and sai d, " i f we can hel p,

l et us know. " Di Masi al so cont act ed House Maj or i t y Whi p Li nda

Hawki ns r egar di ng t he EDW pr oj ect , i nst r uct i ng her t o i nf or m

Dr i scol l t hat Di Masi woul d ensur e t hat any dat a col l ect i on

ent er pr i se t hat DOE pr oposed woul d be i ncl uded i n t he st at e

budget .

I n f act , Massachuset t s Governor Romney di d not i ncl ude

t he f undi ng i n hi s pr oposed 2007 budget . Lal l y conf er r ed wi t h

McDonough about speaki ng wi t h Di Masi ; McDonough t ol d hi m t hat he

woul d " t ake car e of i t . " Di Masi subsequent l y had hi s l egal counsel

dr af t a budget amendment pr ovi di ng $5. 2 mi l l i on f or t he over al l EDW

pr oj ect , $4. 5 mi l l i on of whi ch was speci f i cal l y ear mar ked f or

sof t ware. The draf t amendment was shared wi t h McDonough and Lal l y.

By thi s t i me, Lal l y had al r eady l ef t Cognos f or Mont val e.

Bef ore doi ng so, however , he negot i ated a deal wi t h Cognos t hat

pr ovi ded hi m a 20% commi ssi on on sof t war e deal s t hat he had

ar r anged, but had not yet cl osed. EDW was one such deal . Lal l y

al so advi sed hi s successor at Cognos, Chr i st opher Qui nt er , never t o

cancel a cont r act " f or a l obbyi st named Topazi o. " He sai d t hat

Topazi o was a " f r i end t o Sal " and woul d be hel pi ng Lal l y. Fear i ng

t hat an i nqui si t i ve Qui nt er woul d uncover t he det ai l s of t he scheme

i nvol vi ng McDonough, Topazi o and Di Masi , Lal l y al so t ol d Qui nt er

not t o t el l McDonough about t he Topazi o deal , even t hough,

-8-


9/48

obvi ousl y, McDonough was pr i vy t o i t . Lal l y expl ai ned t hat he

want ed Qui nt er " t o st ay as f ar away f r om [ t he deal ] as possi bl e. "

As t he l egi sl at i ve pr ocess moved f or war d, St at e

Repr esent at i ve Rober t Coughl i n sponsor ed t he EDWamendment - - wi t h

t he sof t ware earmark - - because he was " honor ed" t o make a pr oposal

t hat was of such i mpor t ance t o t he Speaker . Di Masi ' s st af f al so

i nf or med t he House Ways and Means Commi t t ee of t he Speaker ' s

suppor t f or t he EDW pr oj ect , and t he st af f was kept i n t he

i nf or mat i onal l oop r egar di ng t he l egi sl at i ve pr ogr ess. At some

poi nt whi l e t he l egi sl at i on was pendi ng, DOE asked t hat t he ear mar k

be r emoved f r om t he l egi sl at i on out of f ear t hat t he $4. 5 mi l l i on

desi gnated f or sof t ware woul d not l eave enough money f or

i mpl ement at i on and depl oyment . Lal l y voi ced obj ect i on t o Di Masi

because such a move woul d r educe hi s commi ssi on. Di Masi ensured

t hat t he ear mar k remai ned i n t he l egi sl at i on.

I n May 2006, as t he budget - - i ncl udi ng t he EDWamendment

and sof t ware ear mark - - near ed enact ment , McDonough t ol d Lal l y t hat

he woul d have t o pay $100, 000 each t o McDonough and t o Di Masi ' s

f r i end and f i nanci al advi sor Vi t al e af t er t he deal cl osed.

McDonough t ol d Lal l y t hat t he money pai d t o Vi t al e was t o be

shi f t ed t o Di Masi t hr ough a l i ne of cr edi t t hat Vi t al e woul d ext end

t o hi m. Lal l y r ecei ved hi s commi ss i on when t he budget was si gned

i nt o l aw. He t est i f i ed t hat he pai d t he money because he was " t ol d

t hat ' s what I need t o do i n or der t o get t he deal and t he f undi ng

-9-


10/48

t hr ough t he Speaker . " Di Masi t hanked Lal l y when t he l at t er

i nf or med hi m t hat he had gi ven Vi t al e a check f or $100, 000. I n

J une 2006, a company t hat Vi t al e cont r ol l ed ext ended a $250, 000

l i ne of cr edi t t o Di Masi i n exchange f or a t hi r d mor t gage on hi s

home. Di Masi dr ew on t he l i ne of cr edi t , r epayi ng i t onl y af t er

t he medi a began l ooki ng i nt o hi s rel at i onshi p wi t h Cognos. Al so i n

J une, but bef or e t he budget was passed, Lal l y pl ayed gol f wi t h

McDonough and Di Masi . At one poi nt , t he Speaker sai d t o t he other

t wo men, " I am onl y goi ng t o be Speaker f or so l ong, so i t i s

i mport ant t hat we make as much hay as possi bl e. " Af t er gi vi ng

Lal l y a "hi gh f i ve, " McDonough sai d, "How about t hat . You got t he

speaker t el l i ng you somet hi ng l i ke t hat . "

As t he EDW machi nat i ons wer e concl udi ng, Di Masi ,

McDonough and Lal l y chart ed a cour se desi gned t o l egi sl ate another

Cognos cont r act , whi ch woul d i n t ur n generate a commi ss i on f or

Lal l y and payment s t o McDonough and Di Masi . The pl an centered

around obt ai ni ng a sof t ware l i cence f or Cognos sof t ware known as

Perf ormance Management ( "PM") , whi ch was desi gned t o i mprove t he

per f or mance of st at e agenci es t hr ough subst ant i al dat a col l ect i on.

I n Massachuset t s, r esponsi bi l i t y f or st at ewi de t echnol ogy

mat t er s r est s wi t h t he I nf or mat i on Technol ogy Di vi si on ( " I TD") of

t he Of f i ce of Admi ni st r at i on and Fi nance. Lal l y began t he pr ocess

by t el l i ng t he act i ng head of I TD, Bet hann Pepol i , t hat Di Masi

want ed t o di scuss PM. At Lal l y' s ur gi ng, Pepol i met wi t h Di Masi

-10-


11/48

and hi s chi ef of st af f . Despi t e hi s own l ack of comput er

sophi st i cat i on, Di Masi , ar med wi t h t al ki ng poi nt s t hat Lal l y had

pr ovi ded, sai d t hat he want ed sof t war e on hi s comput er t o t r ack

st at e spendi ng. Despi t e Pepol i ' s pr ot est s t hat exi st i ng sof t war e

coul d accompl i sh t he t ask, Di Masi i nst r uct ed her t o wor k wi t h hi s

st af f t o devel op a bond bi l l f or t he pr oj ect . Lat er i n 2006,

McDonough r ecei ved dr af t l egi sl at i on f r omLal l y and hi s par t ner at

Mont val e, Br uce Maj or , t hat descr i bed t he PM sof t war e i n a way that

hel ped ensur e Cognos' s sel ect i on f or t he pr oj ect . The l egi sl at i on

al so pr oposed $15 mi l l i on i n f undi ng, $5 mi l l i on mor e t han I TD' s

est i mat e.

Af t er Gover nor Pat r i ck took of f i ce i n ear l y 2007, Di Masi

ur ged hi m t o i ncl ude t he $15 mi l l i on i n f undi ng i n t he st at e' s

emergency bond bi l l , whi ch was usual l y t argeted at i mmedi ate needs.

The Governor ' s of f i ce i ni t i al l y bal ked, si nce t he Governor di d not

want t he emergency bi l l l aden wi t h non- essent i al i t ems and because

a gener al bond bi l l woul d be pr oposed wi t hi n a shor t t i me. The

measure was event ual l y i ncl uded i n t he emergency bi l l , whi ch was

passed i nt o l aw i n Mar ch 2007. St at e of f i ci al s t est i f i ed t hat t he

$15 mi l l i on woul d not have remai ned i n t he emergency bond bi l l i f

t he Speaker had not expr essed hi s i nt er est .

Even af t er t he bond bi l l passed, Cognos f aced compet i t i on

f r om ot her vendor s t o wi n t he cont r act awar d. Once agai n Di Masi

got i nvol ved, meet i ng wi t h var i ous st at e of f i ci al s and t he

-11-


12/48

Gover nor , and recommendi ng t hat Cognos be sel ect ed as t he PM

vendor . Phone r ecor ds al so showed cal l s bet ween Lal l y, Vi t al e,

Di Masi and McDonough on one par t i cul ar l y i mpor t ant day of meet i ngs.

Al t hough Admi ni st r at i on and Fi nance Secr et ar y Lesl i e Ki r wan' s

concer ns over t he cost of t he cont r act l ed her t o negot i at e a $2

mi l l i on r educt i on f r omt he pr oposed $15 mi l l i on, Cognos was awar ded

t he cont r act . Ki r wan expr essed t o a col l eague her hopes t hat " t he

bi g guy down t he hal l " - - meani ng Di Masi - - was happy. Despi t e hi s

expr essed i nt er est i n f undi ng t he pr oj ect , nei t her Di Masi nor hi s

st af f ever f ol l owed up wi t h st at e of f i ci al s about t he pr oj ect or

i t s i mpl ement at i on af t er t he bi l l ' s passage.

Pr i or t o t he PM bi l l ' s passage, Vi t al e t ol d Lal l y t hat he

woul d have t o be pai d $500, 000 t o ensure t he l egi sl at i on' s success.

Upon r ecei vi ng a $2. 8 mi l l i on commi ssi on f r omCognos af t er t he bi l l

passed, Lal l y pai d $500, 000 t o an ent i t y cont r ol l ed by Vi t al e f r om

whi ch Di Masi woul d dr aw f unds, as wel l as $200, 000 to McDonough,

who t hen r et ur ned $50, 000 t o Lal l y, unbeknownst t o Lal l y' s par t ner .

Af t er t he PM cont r act was si gned i n August 2007, an

unsuccessf ul bi dder l odged a f or mal pr ot est , cl ai mi ng t hat t he bi d

was t he pr oduct of i r r egul ar i t i es i n t he pr ocess. Af t er a r evi ew,

t he cont r act was voi ded, and Cognos' s successor i n i nt er est had t o

r etur n t he $13 mi l l i on t o t he Commonweal t h. No r epl acement pr oj ect

was sought or f unded.

-12-


13/48

I n Mar ch 2008, Bost on Gl obe repor t er s began r ai si ng

quest i ons about t he cancel l ed Cognos cont r act , event ual l y

publ i shi ng a st or y on Mar ch 10. Bef or e t he st or y r an, each of t he

par t i ci pant s i nvol ved i n secur i ng t he deal began cover i ng hi s

t r acks. For exampl e, Di Masi t ol d hi s pr ess secr et ar y t hat he di d

not know Lal l y and was unaware of payment s t o Topazi o or of t he

Topazi o- Cognos cont r act . He al so r emar ked t o Topazi o t hat cer t ai n

check regi st er ent r i es r ef l ect i ng payment s t o Di Masi shoul d get

" l ost . " McDonough was pr esent when t he Gl obe cal l ed Lal l y f or

comment bef or e publ i shi ng t he f i r st st or y. 1 McDonough r esponded,

"Oh, t he shi t ' s goi ng t o hi t t he f an now. " Af t er t he st or y r an,

McDonough and Lal l y f r i sked each ot her whenever t hey met t o ensur e

t hat nei t her was "wear i ng a wi r e" t o r ecor d t he ot her . Di Masi al so

t el ephoned a meet i ng at t ended by McDonough, Lal l y and Vi t al e and

admoni shed t he t r i o, "I f one of us br eaks, we al l f al l . " Two

mont hs af t er t he f i r st Gl obe st or y, Di Masi wi t hdr ew f unds f r omhi s

r et i r ement account t o pay of f r oughl y $179, 000 dr awn on hi s l i ne of

cr edi t .

I n Oct ober 2009, a gr and j ur y r et ur ned a super sedi ng

i ndi ct ment char gi ng Di Masi , McDonough, Vi t al e and Lal l y wi t h

conspi r i ng t o commi t honest - ser vi ces mai l f r aud, honest - ser vi ces

wi r e f r aud, and ext or t i on, i n vi ol at i on of 18 U. S. C. 371 ( Count

1 The Gl obe subsequent l y publ i shed st or i es addr essi ngDi Masi ' s l i ne of cr edi t wi t h Vi t al e' s company and t he Cognos-Topazi o cont r act .

-13-


14/48

1) ; t hr ee count s of honest - ser vi ces mai l f r aud, i n vi ol at i on of 18

U. S. C. 1341 and 1346 ( Count s 2- 4) ; and f our count s of honest -

ser vi ces wi r e f r aud, i n vi ol at i on of 18 U. S. C. 1343 and 1346

( Count s 5- 8) . Di Masi was al so char ged wi t h extor t i on under col or

of of f i ci al r i ght , i n vi ol at i on of 18 U. S. C. 1951 ( Count 9) , and

Lal l y was char ged wi t h money l aunder i ng, i n vi ol at i on of 18 U. S. C.

1957. As not ed, Lal l y ent ered i nt o a pl ea agr eement and Vi t al e

was f ound not gui l t y. The j ury convi ct ed Di Masi and McDonough on

t he count s t hat appl i ed t o t hem.

II. LEGAL ISSUES

A. Suf f i ci ency of t he Evi dence

Both Di Masi and McDonough cl ai m t hat t he evi dence was

l egal l y i nsuf f i ci ent t o suppor t t hei r convi ct i ons. We r evi ew t hei r

cl ai ms de novo, consi der i ng t he evi dence i n t he l i ght most

f avor abl e t o t he ver di ct . Uni t ed St at es v. Ri os- Or t i z, 708 F. 3d

310, 315 ( 1st Ci r . 2013) . " [ R] ever sal i s war r ant ed onl y wher e no

r at i onal f act f i nder coul d have concl uded t hat t he evi dence

pr esent ed at t r i al , t oget her wi t h al l r easonabl e i nf er ences,

est abl i shed each el ement of t he cr i me beyond a reasonabl e doubt . "

I d. ( quot i ng Uni t ed St at es v. Symonevi ch, 688 F. 3d 12, 23 ( 1st Ci r .

2012) ) . We need not concl ude " t hat no ver di ct ot her t han a gui l t y

ver di ct coul d sensi bl y be reached, " but must onl y be sat i sf i ed t hat

t he ver di ct f i nds suppor t i n a "pl ausi bl e r endi t i on of t he r ecor d. "

Uni t ed St at es v. Hat ch, 434 F. 3d 1, 4 ( 1st Ci r . 2006) .

-14-


15/48

We f i r st addr ess t he subst ant i ve count s l evel ed agai nst

bot h appel l ant s.

1. Honest Ser vi ces Fr aud

Feder al l aw pr oscr i bes usi ng t he mai l or wi r es i n

connect i on wi t h a "scheme or ar t i f i ce" t o def r aud. See 18 U. S. C.

1341, 1343. As r el evant her e, a " ' scheme or art i f i ce t o

def r aud' i ncl udes a scheme or ar t i f i ce t o depr i ve anot her of t he

i nt angi bl e r i ght of honest ser vi ces. " 18 U. S. C. 1346. I n

const r ui ng t hi s def i ni t i on, however , t he Supr eme Cour t i n Ski l l i ng

v. Uni t ed St ates hel d t hat sect i on 1346 r eaches onl y those schemes

t hat i nvol ve br i bes or ki ckbacks, 130 S. Ct . 2896, 2931- 34 ( 2010) ,

and "dr aws cont ent " f r om, i nt er al i a, f eder al st at ut es pr oscr i bi ng

br i ber y of publ i c of f i ci al s and wi t nesses, see 18 U. S. C. 201, and

ki ckbacks, see 41 U. S. C. 8701.

I n t he cont ext of publ i c of f i ci al s , a br i be i s t he

r ecei pt of "anyt hi ng of val ue . . . i n r et ur n f or . . . bei ng

i nf l uenced i n t he per f or mance of any of f i ci al act . " 18 U. S. C.

201. I n addi t i on, because "[ t ] he i l l egal conduct i s t aki ng or

agr eei ng t o take money f or a pr omi se t o act i n a cer t ai n way, "

Uni t ed St ates v. Br ewst er , 408 U. S. 501, 526 ( 1972) , t he government

must pr ove t hat an agr eement f or a qui d pr o quo exi st ed; t hat i s,

t he r ecei pt of somet hi ng of val ue " i n exchange f or " an of f i ci al

act . Uni t ed St at es v. Sun- Di amond Gr ower s of Cal . , 526 U. S. 398,

404- 05 ( 1999) . Such an agr eement need not be t i ed t o a speci f i c

-15-


16/48

act by t he r eci pi ent . See Uni t ed St at es v. Ter r y, 707 F. 3d 607,

612 ( 6t h Ci r . 2013) ; Uni t ed St ates v. Gani m, 510 F. 3d 134, 148 ( 2d

Ci r . 2007) . " I t i s suf f i ci ent i f t he publ i c of f i ci al underst ood

t hat he or she was expected t o exer ci se some i nf l uence on t he

payor ' s behal f as oppor t uni t i es ar ose. " Ter r y, 707 F. 3d at 612

( quot i ng Uni t ed St at es v. Abbey, 560 F. 3d 513, 518 ( 6t h Ci r . 2009) .

Ul t i mat el y, " [ w] hat i s needed i s an agr eement . . . whi ch can be

f or mal or i nf or mal , wr i t t en or oral . As most br i ber y agr eement s

wi l l be or al and i nf or mal , t he quest i on i s one of i nf er ences t aken

f r om what t he par t i ci pant s say, mean and do, al l mat t er s t hat

j ur i es ar e f ul l y equi pped t o assess . " I d. at 613; see al so Evans

v. Uni t ed St at es, 504 U. S. 255, 274 ( 1992) ( Kennedy, J . , concur r i ng

i n par t and concur r i ng i n t he j udgment ) ( "[ T] he t r i er of f act i s

qui t e capabl e of deci di ng t he i nt ent wi t h whi ch wor ds wer e spoken

or act i ons t aken as wel l as t he r easonabl e const r uct i on gi ven t o

t hemby t he of f i ci al and t he payor . ") . As t her e i s no di sput e t hat

t he t r ansact i ons at i ssue used bot h mai l and wi r e, we f ocus on t he

appel l ant s' cont ent i ons r egar di ng the al l eged scheme t o def r aud.

We st art by not i ng t hat "evi dence of a cor r upt agr eement

i n br i ber y cases i s usual l y ci r cumst ant i al , because br i bes ar e

sel dom accompani ed by wr i t t en cont r act s, r ecei pt s or publ i c

decl ar at i ons of i nt ent i ons. " Uni t ed St at es v. Fr i edman, 854 F. 2d

535, 554 ( 2d Ci r . 1988) . Accor di ngl y, " t he best evi dence of

[ Di Masi ' s] i nt ent t o per f or m of f i ci al act s to f avor [ Lal l y' s] and

-16-


17/48

[ Cognos' s] i nt er est s i s t he evi dence of [ Di Masi ' s] act i ons on bi l l s

t hat wer e i mpor t ant t o [ Lal l y] . " Uni t ed St at es v. Woodwar d, 149

F. 3d 46, 60 ( 1st Ci r . 1998) ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) . We

concl ude that a rat i onal j ur y coul d easi l y f i nd beyond a reasonabl e

doubt t hat Di Masi and McDonough t ook par t i n a scheme that saw

Di Masi exchange hi s of f i ci al act s f or money. These act i ons f i t

comf or t abl y i nt o what t he Supr eme Cour t has descr i bed as a " cl assi c

ki ckback scheme, " i n whi ch a publ i c of f i ci al uses a mi ddl eman t o

hel p anot her ent i t y - - her e Lal l y and Cognos - - gener at e r evenue or

commi ssi ons and t he pr oceeds ar e shar ed wi t h t he of f i ci al and t he

mi ddl eman. See Ski l l i ng, 130 S. Ct . at 2932 ( ci t i ng McNal l y v.

Uni t ed St at es, 483 U. S. 350, 352- 53 ( 1987) ) .

Her e, t he j ur y was i nst r uct ed t o consi der onl y t he

payment s t o Topazi o and Vi t al e - - but not t he payment s t o McDonough

- - f or pur poses of t he honest servi ces f r aud char ges. A r easonabl e

j ury coul d have concl uded t hat t he cont r act wi t h Topazi o

const i t ut ed a st r eam of payment s i nt ended f or Di Masi i n exchange

f or Di Masi pr ovi di ng benef i t s t o Cognos and Lal l y. See Gani m, 510

F. 3d at 148. Moreover , t he payment s t hat McDonough st eer ed f r om

Lal l y t o Vi t al e al so suppor t ed the exi st ence of a scheme, and wer e

especi al l y cl ose i n t i me t o t he act i ons t hat Di Masi t ook on behal f

of Lal l y wi t h r espect t o t he PM pr oj ect. Fi nal l y, t he j ur y coul d

have dr awn i nf er ences of gui l t f r omt he def endant s' behavi or bef or e

and af t er t hei r ar r angement s came under scr ut i ny, i ncl udi ng

-17-


18/48

Di Masi ' s i nst r uct i ons t o Topazi o t o del i ver smal l er checks and hi s

"suggest i on" t hat a checkbook r egi st er shoul d become "l ost , " as

wel l as Lal l y and McDonough' s habi t of f r i ski ng each ot her f or

r ecor di ng devi ces and Di Masi ' s admoni t i on t hat one of t hem

"br eaki ng" woul d r esul t i n a "f al l " f or al l of t hem.

The appel l ant s gener al l y at t ack Lal l y' s cr edi bi l i t y,

r ef er r i ng t o hi m- - wi t h r ecor d suppor t - - as a "sel f - admi t t ed l i ar

who was pr oven t o have a r eput at i on wi t hi n Cognos as a l i ar . " They

al so hi ghl i ght t he many benef i t s t hat he r ecei ved as a r esul t of

hi s pl ea agr eement , i ncl udi ng a r el at i vel y shor t pr i son sent ence

and avoi dance of t he f or f ei t ur e of hi s home. The at t empt t o base

t hei r suf f i ci ency ar gument on Lal l y' s unsavor i ness, however ,

necessar i l y f ai l s. To be sur e, as a wi t ness t est i f yi ng pur suant t o

a pl ea agr eement , Lal l y had i ncent i ve t o l i e. But what ever hi s

evi dent i ar y war t s may have been, Lal l y' s cr edi bi l i t y was f or t he

j ury t o wei gh. Uni t ed Stat es v. Appol on, 695 F. 3d 44, 55 ( 1st Ci r .

2012) ; see Uni t ed St at es v. Rosar i o- Di az, 202 F. 3d 54, 67 ( 1st Ci r .

2000) ( not i ng t hat uncor r obor at ed t est i mony of a cooper at i ng

wi t ness i s suf f i ci ent t o sust ai n a convi ct i on unl ess t he t est i mony

i s "f aci al l y i ncredi bl e") . Mor eover , Lal l y was subj ect t o

extensi ve cr oss- exami nat i on, and t he j ur y was i nst r uct ed t o r egar d

hi s t est i mony wi t h caut i on.

The appel l ant s next ar gue t hat t he payments t o Topazi o

cannot suppor t t hei r convi ct i ons. They f i r st sei ze upon one

-18-


19/48

sent ence i n Lal l y' s t est i mony, i n whi ch he sai d t hat he made the

payment s t o Topazi o "hopi ng . . . t o r eap some benef i t s. " Such a

bl i nd "hope, " accor di ng t o t he appel l ant s, cannot f or mt he basi s of

t he r equi r ed qui d pr o quo ar r angement . Thi s ar gument , however ,

does l i t t l e mor e t han i sol at e a si ngl e sent ence out of Lal l y' s

t est i mony - - and a si ngl e wor d wi t hi n t hat sent ence - - devoi d of

t he cont ext of hi s t est i mony wr i t l ar ge t hat does suggest such an

ar r angement . See, e. g. , Uni t ed St at es v. Tur ner , 684 F. 3d 244, 258

( 1st Ci r . ) ( hol di ng t hat i n l i ght of ot her evi dence, payor ' s use of

t he t er m "gr at i t ude" di d not pr event t he j ur y f r om f i ndi ng t hat

payment was a br i be, r at her t han a l egal gr at ui t y) , cer t . deni ed,

133 S. Ct . 629 ( 2012) . For exampl e, t he j ur y coul d have f ound t hat

Di Masi ' s comment about "maki ng as much hay as possi bl e" was an

expr essi on of hi s i nt ent t o keep t he money f l owi ng. Mor eover ,

Lal l y' s t est i mony t hat he was t ol d t hat he had t o pay t he money t o

get t he deal s done al so suppor t s t he j ur y' s ver di ct s.

And t her e was mor e. Ther e can be l i t t l e doubt t hat t he

Topazi o cont r act was a sham. I t f i r st cal l ed f or t he per f or mance

of ser vi ces t hat Topazi o or di nar i l y di d not r ender and t hen

ul t i mat el y pai d hi m f or doi ng no wor k. McDonough set up t he

cont r act and Topazi o al so made Di Masi - - who knew where Topazi o' s

l egal exper t i se l ay - - awar e of i t . Addi t i onal l y, Di Masi at f i r st

t ook a hi gher - t han- nor mal r ef er r al f ee and l at er t ol d Topazi o t o

st r uct ur e t he l ump- sum payment i nt o smal l er amount s, an act whi ch

-19-


20/48

t he j ur y coul d have vi ewed as an at t empt t o conceal hi s mi sdeeds.

See Ur ci ol i I I , 613 F. 3d at 14 n. 2 ( not i ng t hat def endant ' s ef f or t

t o hi de a busi ness r el at i onshi p coul d be evi dence t o suppor t

honest - ser vi ces f r aud convi ct i on) .

The appel l ants al so ar gue t hat t he t i mi ng of Di Masi ' s

of f i ci al act s i n suppor t of Cognos, as compar ed t o t he t i mi ng of

payment s t o Di Masi , shoul d have pr ecl uded t he j ur y f r om f i ndi ng a

connect i on between t he payment s and t he act s. They al so poi nt t o

t he per i od of t i me dur i ng whi ch no payment s were made t o Topazi o

and t he per i od between t he l apse of one cont r act and t he si gni ng of

t he next as f at al evi dent i ar y def ect s. We di sagr ee. "[ B] r i ber y

can be accompl i shed t hr ough an ongoi ng cour se of conduct , so l ong

as t he evi dence shows t hat t he ' f avor s and gi f t s f l owi ng t o a

publ i c of f i ci al [ ar e] i n exchangef or a pat t er n of of f i ci al act i ons

f avor abl e t o t he donor . ' " Gani m, 510 F. 3d at 149 ( quot i ng Uni t ed

St at es v. J enni ngs, 160 F. 3d 1006, 1014 ( 4t h Ci r . 1998) ) . Her e,

t he evi dence shows a chai n of event s t hat began wi t h t he 2004

di scuss i on between McDonough and Lal l y and cont i nued wi t h Cognos' s

f i r st payment t o Topazi o i n Apr i l 2005 and Topazi o' s f i r st

"r ef er r al " payment t o Di Masi shor t l y t her eaf t er . Lal l y and

McDonough subsequent l y spoke wi t h Di Masi about contact i ng DOE

Commi ssi oner Dr i scol l bef or e t he pi l ot pr oj ect was awar ded t o

Cognos. Di Masi spoke wi t h Dr i scol l , and had Repr esent at i ve Hawki ns

t o do t he same, about obt ai ni ng l egi sl at i ve f undi ng f or EDW af t er

-20-


21/48

t he pi l ot pr oj ect was awar ded. Agai nst t hi s backdr op, we have

l i t t l e t r oubl e concl udi ng t hat a r easonabl e j ur y coul d have f ound

t hat t he Topazi o payment s suppor t ed t he gui l t y ver di ct s.

We reach t he same concl usi on concerni ng t he payment s t o

Vi t al e. 2 The appel l ant s argue t hat t he evi dence coul d not suppor t

a f i ndi ng t hat t he payment s t o Vi t al e suppor t ed t he convi ct i ons, as

t her e was a l ack of any nexus bet ween the payment s and any benef i t

t o Di Masi . McDonough al so speci f i cal l y ar gues that t her e was no

evi dence t hat he was awar e of t he put at i ve benef i t t o Di Masi . As

t o t he l at t er , Lal l y t est i f i ed t hat McDonough sai d t hat t he

$100, 000 payment on t he EDWdeal woul d i nur e t o Di Masi t hr ough the

l i ne of credi t . 3 As t o t he f or mer , t he evi dence est abl i shed t hat

2 The payment s t o ei t her Vi t al e or Topazi o woul d besuf f i ci ent t o suppor t t he ver di ct s. We addr ess bot h f or t he sakeof compl et eness. And t o t he extent t hat appel l ant s seek succor

f r om Vi t al e' s acqui t t al , t her e i s none t o be had. See Uni t edSt at es v. Roger s, 121 F. 3d 12, 16 ( 1st Ci r . 1997) ( "A not gui l t yver di ct agai nst one co- conspi r at or i s not t he equi val ent of af i ndi ng t hat t he evi dence was i nsuf f i ci ent t o sust ai n t heconspi r acy convi ct i on of a second co- conspi r at or . " ( ci t i ng Uni t edSt at es v. Bucuval as, 909 F. 2d 593, 595- 97 ( 1st Ci r . 1990) ) ) . I ft he evi dence i s "suf f i ci ent t o suppor t t he ver di ct agai nst t heconvi ct ed def endant , t he convi ct i on must st and despi t e t he co-conspi r at or ' s acqui t t al . " I d.

3 McDonough argues t hat Lal l y' s t est i mony was uncor r oborated.We di sagr ee. The evi dence showed t hat Vi t al e di r ect ed one of hi s

compani es - - Washi ngt on Nort h - - t o ext end a $250, 000 l i ne ofcr edi t t o Di Masi and hi s wi f e; t hat Mont val e pai d $100, 000 t o anent i t y cont r ol l ed by Washi ngt on Nor t h, and t hat ent i t y - - WNAdvi sors - - was cr eat ed t he same day as t he l i ne of cr edi t wasordered; and t hat Mont val e and WN Advi sor s ent ered i nt o what coul dhave been seen as a sham consul t i ng agr eement t o l egi t i mi ze t he$100, 000 payment .

-21-


22/48

Vi t al e st i l l had cont r ol over t he $500, 000 r ecei ved f r om Cognos' s

successor Mont val e, and t hat Di Masi pl anned t o j oi n Vi t al e' s

l obbyi ng f i r m wher e, t he j ur y coul d have f ound, Di Masi woul d have

access t o t he money: Lal l y t est i f i ed t hat Vi t al e sai d t hat he

woul dn' t be get t i ng any of t he money, but t hat " i t al l goes t o

Sal . " The r ecor d evi dence suf f i ci ent l y t i es t he Vi t al e payment s t o

Di Masi and support s McDonough' s gui l t on t he honest ser vi ces

charge.

2. Ext or t i on

The j ury convi ct ed Di Masi of ext or t i on under col or of

of f i ci al r i ght , i n vi ol at i on of 18 U. S. C. 1951. To secur e a

convi ct i on, t he gover nment must pr ove " t hat a publ i c of f i ci al has

obt ai ned a payment t o whi ch he was not ent i t l ed, knowi ng t hat t he

payment was made i n r et ur n f or of f i ci al act s. " Tur ner , 684 F. 3d at

253 ( ci t i ng Evans, 504 U. S. at 268) . " [ T] he of f ense i s compl et ed

at t he t i me when t he publ i c of f i ci al r ecei ves a payment i n r et ur n

f or hi s agr eement t o per f or mspeci f i c of f i ci al acts; f ul f i l l ment of

t he qui d pr o quo i s not an el ement of t he of f ense. " I d. ( quot i ng

Evans, 504 U. S. at 268) . Fi nal l y, as we observed i n Tur ner , some

cour t s have hel d t hat a qui d pr o quo or r eci pr oci t y i s necessary t o

suppor t t he convi ct i on, "but t hat t he agr eement may be i mpl i ed f r om

t he of f i ci al ' s wor ds and act i ons. " I d. at 253- 54 ( quot i ng Gani m,

510 F. 3d at 143) ; see al so Evans, 504 U. S. at 274 ( Kennedy, J . ,

concur r i ng) ( obser vi ng t hat of f i ci al and payor "need not st at e t he

-22-


23/48

qui d pr o quo i n expr ess t er ms, f or ot her wi se the l aw' s ef f ect coul d

be f r ust r ated by knowi ng wi nks and nods" ) . 4

Here, f or t he same r easons t hat we f ound the evi dence

suf f i ci ent t o suppor t t he honest - ser vi ces f r aud convi ct i ons, we

hol d t hat t he j ur y was pr esent ed wi t h enough evi dence t o support

Di Masi ' s ext or t i on convi ct i on. Ther e i s no need t o r epet i t i vel y

r eci t e t hat evi dence.

3. Conspi r acy

I n addi t i on t o the subst ant i ve honest - ser vi ces f r aud

count s, McDonough and Di Masi wer e convi ct ed of conspi r acy t o commi t

honest - servi ces f r aud. A conspi r acy convi ct i on under 18 U. S. C.

371 r equi r es pr oof t hat t he def endant agr eed t o commi t an

unl awf ul act and vol unt ar i l y par t i ci pat ed i n t he conspi r acy, and

t hat an over t act was commi t t ed i n f ur t her ance of t he conspi r acy.

Uni t ed St at es v. Gonzal ez, 570 F. 3d 16, 24 ( 1st Ci r . 2009) . Wher e,

as her e, t he i ndi ct ment al l eges a conspi r acy t o commi t mul t i pl e

of f enses, t he convi ct i on may be uphel d as l ong as t he evi dence

suppor t s a conspi r acy t o commi t any one of t he of f enses. Uni t ed

St at es v. Muoz- Franco, 487 F. 3d 25, 46 ( 1st Ci r . 2007) . Fur t her ,

4 Wi t h r espect t o bot h t he honest - servi ces and extor t i oncount s, t he appel l ant s urge us t o f ol l ow McCor mi ck v. Uni t ed St at es

and requi r e pr oof t hat " t he payment s [ wer e] made i n ret ur n f or anexpl i ci t pr omi se or under t aki ng by t he of f i ci al t o per f or m or nott o per f or m an of f i ci al act . " 500 U. S. 257, 273 ( 1991) ( emphasi sadded) . We decl i ne t o do so, however , as we have hel d t hatMcCor mi ck appl i es onl y i n t he cont ext of campai gn cont r i but i ons.See Uni t ed St at es v. Tur ner , 684 F. 3d 244, 253- 54 ( 1st Ci r . ) , cer t .deni ed, 133 S. Ct . 629 ( 2012) .

-23-


24/48

an agr eement t o j oi n a conspi r acy "may be expr ess or t aci t . . .

and may be pr oved by di r ect or ci r cumst ant i al evi dence. " Uni t ed

St at es v. Ri ver a Cal der n, 578 F. 3d 78, 88 ( 1st Ci r . 2009) . Such

evi dence may i ncl ude t he def endant s' act s t hat f ur t her ed t he

conspi r acy' s pur poses. Uni t ed St at es v. Rodr i guez- Reyes, 714 F. 3d

1, 7 ( 1st Ci r . 2013) .

We have l i t t l e t r oubl e concl udi ng t hat t he evi dence was

suf f i ci ent t o suppor t t he j ur y' s f i ndi ng of t he r equi r ed agr eement

and par t i ci pat i on. The j ur y was i nst r uct ed on t he conspi r acy count

t hat i t must f i nd t hat a def endant , i nt er al i a, agr eed t o commi t a

cr i me i nvol vi ng payment s t o Di Masi or payment s t o another person

t hat were caused by Di Masi . The appel l ant s ar gue t hat t he evi dence

f ai l ed t o pr ove t hat Di masi "caused" Lal l y or Cognos t o make t he

payment s t o Vi t al e or McDonough. 5 Thi s ar gument , however , r est s on

a cr amped r eadi ng of "cause", vi z. , t hat t er m must be consi der ed

l i t er al l y, i . e. , t hat Di Masi "made i t happen. " We decl i ne such a

nar r ow const r uct i on. One can "cause" somethi ng t o happen by

"br i ng[ i ng] i t about , " or by "pr oduc[ i ng] an ef f ect or r esul t . "

Bl ack' s Law Di ct i onar y 251 ( 9t h ed. 2009) . Under any def i ni t i on,

however , t he evi dence that we have al r eady out l i ned was suf f i ci ent

5 On t he subst ant i ve count s t he i nst r uct i on r equi r ed af i ndi ng t hat t he scheme i nvol ved a t hi ng of val ue gi ven t o Di Masior caused by Di Masi t o be gi ven t o Vi t al e. The extor t i oni nst r uct i on r equi r ed t hat Di Masi caused t he payment s t o Vi t al e orMcDonough.

-24-


25/48

t o support a f i ndi ng t hat Di Masi caused t he payment s by agr eei ng t o

per f or m of f i ci al act s i n exchange f or t he payment s.

I n t he end, t he appel l ant s' suf f i ci ency ar gument s f ai l

wi t h r espect t o thei r convi ct i ons f or honest - ser vi ces mai l and wi r e

f r aud, conspi r acy t o commi t honest - servi ces f r aud, and Di Masi ' s

ext or t i on convi ct i on.

B. J ur y I nst r ucti ons

Di Masi and McDonough al so asser t a host of i nst r uct i onal

er r or s. We r evi ew t he pr eserved er r or s under a "bi f ur cat ed

f r amewor k. " DeCar o v. Hasbr o, I nc. , 580 F. 3d 55, 61 ( 1st Ci r .

2009) . We r evi ew de novo whether t he i nst r uct i ons "conveyed t he

essence of t he appl i cabl e l aw and r evi ew f or abuse of di scr et i on

quest i ons about whet her t he cour t ' s choi ce of l anguage was unf ai r l y

pr ej udi ci al . " Uni t ed St at es v. Sasso, 695 F. 3d 25, 29 ( 1st Ci r .

2012) . Wi t hal , an i ncor r ect i nst r uct i on does not r equi r e r ever sal

i f t he er r or was har ml ess. I d. I n t he case of an er r or of

"const i t ut i onal di mensi on, " t he gover nment i s r equi r ed t o est abl i sh

beyond a r easonabl e doubt t hat t he er r or di d not i nf l uence t he

ver di ct . I d. Ot her er r or s wi l l not war r ant r ever sal "as l ong as

i t can be sai d ' wi t h f ai r assur ance, af t er ponder i ng al l t hat

happened wi t hout st r i ppi ng t he er r oneous act i on f r om t he whol e,

t hat t he j udgment was not subst ant i al l y swayed by t he er r or . ' " I d.

( quot i ng Kot t eakos v. Uni t ed St at es, 328 U. S. 750, 765 ( 1946) ) .

Regar dl ess of t he nat ur e of t he er r or , we anal yze t he chal l enged

-25-


26/48

i nst r uct i on " i n l i ght of t he evi dence, and det er mi ne whet her , t aken

as a whol e, t he cour t ' s i nst r uct i ons f ai r l y and adequat el y

submi t t ed t he i ssues i n t he case t o t he j ur y. " Uni t ed St at es v.

Tom, 330 F. 3d 83, 91 ( 1st Ci r . 2003) ( i nter nal quot at i ons and

ci t at i ons omi t t ed) .

Her e, t he appel l ant s chal l enge t he t r i al cour t ' s r ef usal

t o gi ve par t i cul ar i nst r uct i ons, whi ch, as not ed, i s r evi ewed f or

abuse of di scr et i on. We wi l l r ever se onl y i f t he r equest ed

i nst r uct i on was: 1) subst ant i vel y cor r ect ; 2) not subst ant i al l y

cover ed i n t he char ge as del i ver ed; and 3) i nt egr al t o an i mpor t ant

poi nt such t hat t he f ai l ur e t o gi ve t he i nst r uct i on ser i ousl y

under mi ned t he def endant ' s abi l i t y t o pr esent a par t i cul ar def ense.

See Uni t ed St at es v. De La Cr uz, 514 F. 3d 121, 139 ( 1st Ci r . 2008) .

When an i nst r uct i on i s r ef used, r ever sal i s not war r ant ed unl ess

t he def endant suf f er s subst ant i al pr ej udi ce. I d. We addr ess t he

appel l ant s' t en i nst r ucti onal pl ai nt s i n t ur n.

1. Di st i ngui shi ng Bet ween Br i bes and Gr at ui t i es

McDonough ar gues t hat t he t r i al cour t ' s i nst r uct i ons di d

not suf f i ci ent l y di f f er ent i at e bet ween i l l egal br i bes and l egal

gr at ui t i es. See Gani m, 510 F. 3d at 146 ( descr i bi ng a l egal

gr at ui t y as somet hi ng "gi ven t o cur r y f avor because of an

of f i ci al ' s posi t i on") . As r el evant her e, t he di str i ct cour t

i nst r uct ed t he j ur y t hat t he government must do more t han pr ove

t hat "Cognos and/ or Lal l y made a payment t o Di Masi or Vi t al e onl y

-26-


27/48

t o cul t i vat e a busi ness or pol i t i cal r el at i onshi p wi t h Di Masi or

onl y t o expr ess gr at i t ude f or somet hi ng Di Masi had done. "

McDonough does not cont end t hat t hi s i nst r uct i on was i ncor r ect .

I nst ead, he ar gues t hat t he j ur y shoul d have been gi ven cl ear er

gui dance as t o what const i t ut ed l egal behavi or . He r equest ed t he

j ury be i nst r uct ed t hat :

pr ovi di ng money t o a publ i c of f i ci al mer el y asa rewar d f or some f ut ur e act t hat t he publ i cof f i ci al wi l l t ake ( or may have al r eadydet er mi ned t o t ake) , or t o bui l d a r eser voi rof good wi l l , or t o cur r y f avor , hopi ng i twoul d af f ect f ut ur e per f or mance, or f or a pastact t hat he has al r eady t aken, does notconst i t ut e honest ser vi ces f r aud.

Thi s r equest ed i nst r uct i on was "subst ant i al l y cover ed i n

t he char ge act ual l y gi ven. " De La Cr uz, 514 F. 3d at 139. I n our

vi ew, t he char ge' s excl usi on f r om i l l egal conduct ef f or t s t o

"cul t i vat e a busi ness r el at i onshi p" or " expr ess gr at i t ude"

suf f i ci ent l y encompasses McDonough' s speci f i c r ef er ences so as t o

pass must er . The di st r i ct cour t was not r equi r ed t o pr ovi de an

exhaust i ve l i st of conduct t hat woul d not be i l l egal . Ther e was no

abuse of di scr et i on. 6

6 McDonough pl aces gr eat wei ght on t he changes Ski l l i ng

br ought t o bear on honest - ser vi ces cases. Essent i al l y, McDonoughar gues t hat t he j ur y shoul d have been i nst r uct ed on t he act i onst hat , post - Ski l l i ng, no l onger f i t wi t hi n t he ambi t of an honest -servi ces convi ct i on. We di sagr ee. Cont r ar y t o McDonough' sar gument , t he j ur y was i nst r uct ed on t he nat ur e of a gr at ui t yconsi st ent wi t h hi s def ense, and McDonough argued t he poi nt t o t hej ury. No mor e was r equi r ed.

-27-


28/48

2. Theor y of Def ense

McDonough next ar gues t hat t he di st r i ct cour t f ai l ed t o

adequat el y i nst r uct t he j ur y on hi s mai n t heor y of def ense - - t hat

he was at al l r el evant t i mes act i ng as a l obbyi st engaged i n l egal

behavi or cent r al t o hi s j ob. As t o t hi s ar gument , t he di st r i ct

cour t f i r st i nst r uct ed t he j ur y t hat "any payment t o Vi t al e onl y t o

l obby publ i c of f i ci al s, meani ng t o advocat e posi t i ons t o publ i c

of f i ci al s or t o pr ovi de st r at egi c advi ce t o cl i ent s seeki ng publ i c

cont r act s or f or busi ness advi ce i s not a basi s f or a mai l or wi r e

char ge. " The cour t al so char ged t he j ur y t hat , " [ i ] t i s al so not

unl awf ul f or a per son t o recei ve a payment he genui nel y bel i eves

was made onl y t o compensate hi m f or l obbyi ng publ i c of f i ci al s or

f or pr ovi di ng st r at egi c advi ce t o cl i ent s seeki ng publ i c cont r act s

or f or pr ovi di ng busi ness advi ce. "7

As wi t h t he pr evi ous i nst r uct i on, McDonough does not

cl ai mt hat t he cour t ' s i nst r ucti on was l egal l y i ncor r ect. I nst ead,

he assert s t hat a mor e compl et e i nst r uct i on descr i bi ng mor e aspect s

of l obbyi ng, i ncl udi ng i t s pr ot ect i on by t he Fi r st Amendment , was

r equi r ed i n or der f or hi m t o asser t hi s def ense. We di sagr ee.

Read as a whol e, t he i nst r uct i ons adequat el y conveyed t o t he j ur y

7 Si nce t he di st r i ct cour t di d not al l ow t he j ur y t o consi dert he payment s t o McDonough as part of t he honest - ser vi ces f r audcount s, t hose payment s wer e not i ncl uded i n t he f i r st i nst r uct i onquoted above. Never t hel ess, McDonough coul d have been f ound gui l t yi f t he j ur y bel i eved t hat he par t i ci pat ed i n a scheme t o pr ovi demoney ei t her t o Topazi o or Vi t al e f or Di Masi ' s benef i t .

-28-


29/48

t he l awf ul ness of t he act i vi t i es t hat McDonough st r essed t o t he

j ury t hrough wi t nesses and ar gument s, speci f i cal l y hi s havi ng

r ef er r ed Lal l y t o Vi t al e and hi s r ol e i n t he r el at i onshi p bet ween

Lal l y and Topazi o. Not hi ng i n t he i nst r uct i ons pr event ed t he j ur y

f r om concl udi ng t hat McDonough' s conduct wi t h r espect t o the

payment s made to Topazi o or Vi t al e f el l wi t hi n t he conf i nes of

l awf ul l obbyi ng. By t he same t oken, however , t he j ur y was al so

f r ee t o r ej ect t he def ense.

3. The "Sol e Pur pose" I nst r uct i on

Bot h McDonough and Di Masi t ake ai m at t he cour t ' s

i nst r uct i ng t he j ur y, af t er gi vi ng some exampl es, t hat "[ i ] n

essence, any payment made or r ecei ved by a def endant sol el y f or one

or mor e l awf ul pur poses i s not a basi s f or a mai l or wi r e f r aud

char ge. " They ar gue t hat because t hi s i nst r uct i on di d not ment i on

t he gover nment ' s bur den of pr oof , t he bur den was ef f ect i vel y pl aced

on t hemt o pr ove t hat t he sol e pur pose of t he payment s was a l awf ul

one. The ver y next wor ds spoken by t he t r i al j udge ar e f at al t o

t hi s ar gument : "However . . . peopl e at t i mes act wi t h a mi xtur e

of mot i ves. I f t he government pr oves beyond a r easonabl e doubt a

payment made i n exchange f or an of f i ci al act , i t i s not r equi r ed t o

pr ove t hat t hi s was the onl y r eason f or t he payment . " The

government ' s bur den was al so r epeat ed numerous t i mes t hroughout t he

charge. There was no err or .

-29-


30/48

McDonough al so ar gues t hat t he def i ni t i on of honest -

ser vi ces f r aud nei t her suf f i ci ent l y descr i bed what was not i l l egal

nor speci f i cal l y named McDonough such t hat a j ur y woul d be abl e t o

appl y hi s def ensi ve argument s. We r ej ected t hese argument s i n

connect i on wi t h ot her i nst r uct i ons and do so agai n her e.

4. Si l ent Under st andi ng

McDonough' s next argument r el ates t o t he conspi r acy

count . The cour t i nst r uct ed t he j ur y, i n r el evant par t , t hat " t he

evi dence t o est abl i sh t he exi st ence of a conspi r acy need not show

t hat t he conspi r at or s ent er ed i nt o an expr ess agr eement . . . . I t

i s suf f i ci ent i f an agr eement i s shown by conduct evi denci ng a

si l ent under st andi ng t o shar e a pur pose to vi ol at e t he l aw. "

McDonough ar gues t hat t he t er m "si l ent under st andi ng" i nvi t ed t he

j ury t o f i nd an agr eement wher e none exi st ed. 8 We di sagree. The

cour t pr ovi ded t he i nst r uct i on i n r ecogni t i on of t he def ense' s

ar gument t hat Lal l y' s t est i mony was ent i r el y unr el i abl e and t he

gover nment ' s f al l back posi t i on t hat a conspi r acy coul d be pr oved by

ci r cumst ant i al evi dence.

McDonough' s argument t hat t he j ury woul d use t he

i nst r uct i on i mpr oper l y t o t i e Di Masi ' s act i ons t o a non- exi st ent

8 We r ej ect McDonough' s argument t hat t he phr ase has been"r esurr ect ed . . . f rom obscur i t y. " I t i s wel l - set t l ed t hat anagr eement can be based on a t aci t under st andi ng. See, e. g. , Uni t edSt at es v. Mar yea, 704 F. 3d 55, 76 ( 1st Ci r . 2013) ( observi ng t hata t aci t under st andi ng bet ween conspi r at or s can suppor t aconvi ct i on) . We see no meani ngf ul di f f er ence bet ween a " t aci t "agr eement and a "si l ent " one.

-30-


31/48

agr eement f al l s shor t because, as pr evi ousl y not ed, t he cour t

t hor oughl y i nst r uct ed t he j ur y bot h on t he nat ur e of l awf ul

payment s and, wi t h gr eat speci f i ci t y, on t he r equi r ement t hat t he

evi dence prove "t hat t he members [ of t he conspi r acy] i n some manner

came t o a mut ual underst andi ng t o t r y t o accompl i sh t hei r unl awf ul

pur pose" and t hat i t was "not suf f i ci ent f or t he gover nment t o

pr ove t hat a person merel y act ed i n a way t hat happened t o f ur t her

some pur pose of t he conspi r acy. " Fi nal l y, any l oose ends wer e t i ed

up wi t h t he i nst r uct i on t hat a conspi r acy convi ct i on coul d not be

based on "mere[ ] associ at [ i on] wi t h someone commi t t i ng a cr i me[ , ]

. . . [ or ] mer e[ ] kn[ owl edge] of i l l egal act i vi t y by ot her peopl e. "

Vi ewed i n t he cont ext of t he whol e, t her e was no er r or i n t he

"si l ent under st andi ng" i nst r uct i on.

5. I nt ent t o Al t er

McDonough next ar gues t hat t he di st r i ct cour t er r oneousl y

r ef used t o i nst r uct t he j ur y t hat , i n or der t o f i nd qui d pr o quo

br i ber y, i t must f i nd t hat a payment was made "wi t h t he speci f i c

i nt ent of causi ng Mr . Di Masi t o al t er hi s of f i ci al act s, t o change

hi s of f i ci al posi t i on t hat he ot her wi se woul d not have t aken or t o

t ake of f i ci al act i ons t hat he woul d not have t aken but f or t he

payment . " 9 The di st r i ct cour t ' s actual i nst r uct i on was t hat

9 Thi s l anguage essent i al l y quot es the i nst r uct i on t hat wasgi ven i n Ur ci ol i I I . 613 F. 3d at 118. Ther e, however , we di d nothol d t hat such an i nst r uct i on was r equi r ed, and r ei t er at ed t hat t hegovernment must est abl i sh that payment s were made "wi t h thespeci f i c pur pose of i nf l uenci ng [ t he of f i ci al ' s] acti ons on

-31-


32/48

t he gover nment must prove beyond a r easonabl edoubt a scheme t o exchange one or mor epayment s f or one or mor e of f i ci al act s byDi Masi on behal f of Lal l y or Cognos. . . .[ T] he government does not have to est abl i sht hat Di Masi woul d not have t aken of f i ci al

act i on as Speaker t o pr omot e the acqui si t i onof an Educat i onal Data Warehouse, busi nessi nt el l i gence sof t war e or per f or mancemanagement sof t ware, i ncl udi ng Cognossof t war e, wi t hout [ t he char ged] payment s.

McDonough ar gues t hat t he i nst r uct i on conf l i ct s wi t h our

pr ecedent , as set f or t h i n Uni t ed St at es v. Sawyer , 85 F. 3d 713

( 1st Ci r . 1996) . Ther e, af t er not i ng t hat t he j ur y must be

adequat el y i nf or med t hat "cul t i vat i on of busi ness or pol i t i cal

f r i endshi p" i s not br i ber y, we obser ved t hat

[ o] nl y i f i nst ead or i n addi t i on, t her e i s ani nt ent t o cause t he r eci pi ent t o al t er herof f i ci al act s may t he j ur y f i nd a t hef t ofhonest servi ces or t he br i ber y pr edi cat e oft he Tr avel Act . Absent some expl i ci texpl anat i on of t hi s ki nd, t he convent i onalchar ge wi l l be sl ant ed i n f avor of convi ct i on.

I d. at 741. Nowher e i n Sawyer , however , di d we equat e "al t er " wi t h

"doi ng somet hi ng t he of f i ci al woul d not have ot her wi se done. " See

al so Ci t y of Col umbi a v. Omni Out door Adver . , 499 U. S. 365, 378

( 1991) ( obser vi ng, i n di ct a, t hat "[ a] mayor i s gui l t y of accept i ng

a br i be even i f he woul d and shoul d have t aken, i n t he publ i c

i nt er est , t he same act i on f or whi ch t he br i be was pai d" ) . I ndeed,

el sewher e i n Sawyer we noted t hat t he j ur y had t o f i nd an " i nt ent

of f i ci al mat t ers . " I d.

-32-


33/48

t o ot her wi se i nf l uence or i mpr oper l y af f ect t he of f i ci al ' s

per f or mance of dut i es, " i d. at 729, whi ch t r acks t he i nst r uct i ons

gi ven i n t hi s case, i n whi ch t he cour t def i ned " i nt ent t o def r aud"

as " t o act wi t h an i nt ent t o depr i ve t he publ i c of Di Masi ' s honest

servi ces by exchangi ng a payment f or an of f i ci al act . I n ot her

words, t he def endant must have i ntended that a payment woul d be

made to i nf l uence an of f i ci al act and woul d be recei ved wi t h t he

i nt ent t o i nf l uenced . . . . " 10 We f i nd no er r or i n t he cour t ' s

r ef usal t o gi ve t he r equest ed i nst r uct i on.

6. Ser i es of Payment s

Wi t h r espect t o t he honest - servi ces f r aud char ges, t he

j ury was i nst r uct ed as f ol l ows:

[ I ] t i s not necessar y f or t he gover nment t opr ove t hat t he scheme i nvol ved maki ng a

10 McDonough di r ect s us to t he Thi r d Ci r cui t ' s deci si on i n

Uni t ed St at es v. Wr i ght , 665 F. 3d 560 ( 3d Ci r . 2012) , i n whi ch t hecour t r ul ed t hat an honest ser vi ces br i ber y convi ct i on r equi r ed t hej ury t o concl ude, i nter al i a, t hat " t he payor provi ded a benef i t t oa publ i c of f i ci al i nt endi ng t hat he wi l l t her eby t ake f avor abl eof f i ci al act s t hat he woul d not ot her wi se t ake. " I d. at 568. Assuppor t f or t hat pr oposi t i on, Wr i ght , i n t ur n, ci t ed Uni t ed St at esv. Br yant , 655 F. 3d 232, 240- 41 ( 3d Ci r . 2011) . But i n Br yant , t hecour t expl i ci t l y r ej ect ed t he appel l ant s' ar gument t hat a j ur yi nst r uct i on was er r oneous because i t f ai l ed t o r equi r e a f i ndi ngt hat t he payor i nt ended t o " ' al t er ' t he conduct of t he publ i cof f i ci al . . . " I d. at 244. I nst ead, t he cour t hel d t hati nst r uct i ons whi ch "made cl ear t hat an i nt ent t o i nf l uence was

r equi r ed f or a f i ndi ng of gui l t " wer e suf f i ci ent . I d. at 245. Asespeci al l y rel evant her e, t he cour t not ed t hat "t her e i s nomeani ngf ul di f f er ence bet ween an i nt ent t o ' al t er , ' and an i nt entt o ' i nf l uence, ' of f i ci al act s. " I d. at 245 n. 14. Her e, as i nBr yant , t he i nst r uct i ons adequat el y conveyed t hat an i nt ent t oi nf l uence/ al t er was r equi r ed, and t hus t he di st r i ct cour t di d noter r i n r ef usi ng t o gi ve t he r equest ed i nst r uct i on.

-33-


34/48

speci f i c payment f or a speci f i c of f i ci al act.Rat her i t woul d be suf f i ci ent i f t hegover nment proves beyond a reasonabl e doubt ascheme t o make a ser i es of payment s i nexchange f or Di Masi per f or mi ng of f i ci alact i ons benef i t t i ng Lal l y and Cognos as

oppor t uni t i es arose or when Di Masi was cal l edupon t o do so.

McDonough ar gues t hat t hi s i nst r uct i on "di l ut ed" t he

di st i nct i on bet ween br i bes and gr at ui t i es. Thi s ar gument i s a

br anch f r omt he same t r ee as t he ear l i er cl ai mt hat t he evi dence of

t he Topazi o payment s was i nsuf f i ci ent t o suppor t t he convi ct i on.

As we have al r eady hel d t hat t he evi dence was suf f i ci ent t o suppor t

t he convi ct i ons and t hat t he i nst r uct i ons as a whol e adequat el y

di f f er ent i at ed bet ween br i bes and gr at ui t i es, we need go no f ur t her

wi t h t hi s par t i cul ar ar gument .

7. Mer i t s of Cognos' s Pr oduct s

At t r i al , t he def endant s r equest ed t hat t he cour t

i nst r uct t he j ur y t hat " [ t ] he qual i t y of t he Cognos pr oduct " and

t he "mer i t s of t he i dea of Per f ormance Management " were a

"ci r cumst ance t o be consi der ed i n t he case. " Whi l e t he cour t

per mi t t ed t he def ense t o ar gue that Di Masi "had a l egi t i mat e mot i ve

f or anythi ng and ever ythi ng he di d t hat r esul t ed i n Cognos get t i ng

t he cont r act, " i t r ef used t o expl i ci t l y i nst r uct t he j ur y as t he

def ense r equest ed. McDonough, wi t hout ci t i ng any suppor t i ng

aut hor i t y, ar gues t hat t he j ur y was t hus depr i ved of gui dance on

t aki ng i nt o account i nf or mat i on t hat coul d have l ed t hem t o

-34-


35/48

concl ude that t he def endant s wer e act i ng i n good f ai t h r at her t han

wi t h cr i mi nal i nt ent . We do not f i nd an abuse of di scr et i on.

As t he di st r i ct cour t cor r ect l y i nst r ucted, t he char ges

r el at ed t o a "scheme to depr i ve t he ci t i zens of Massachuset t s of

Di Masi ' s honest servi ces, r at her t han a scheme to depr i ve t he

Commonweal t h of Massachuset t s of money. " The i ssue i n t hi s case i s

not whet her t he def endant s t r ul y t hought t he sof t war e was a benef i t

t o t he Commonweal t h; i nst ead i t i s whether t hey i nt ended t o

exchange payment s t o Di Masi f or assi st ance t o Cognos. See Uni t ed

St at es v. Shi el ds, 999 F. 2d 1090, 1096 ( 7t h Ci r . 1993) ( observi ng,

i n a j udi ci al br i ber y case, t hat i ssui ng a l egal l y cor r ect j udgment

i s not a def ense t o a br i ber y char ge and t hat because a par t y wi t h

a good case st i l l "buys cer t ai nt y, " a l egal l y cor r ect deci si on

conveys no usef ul i nf or mat i on about t he l i kel i hood of a br i be) .

The di st r i ct cour t cor r ect l y i nst r uct ed t he j ury on t he

char ged of f enses. And t he appel l ant s wer e not precl uded f r om

ar gui ng t o t he j ur y t hat t he mer i t s of t he Cognos product s was a

mar k i n t hei r f avor . But t hey wer e not "ent i t l ed t o an i nst r uct i on

' on ever y par t i cul ar t hat concei vabl y mi ght be of i nt er est t o t he

j ury. ' " Uni t ed Stat es v. Duval , 496 F. 3d 64, 78 ( 1st Ci r . 2007)

( quot i ng Uni t ed St at es v. Rosar i o- Per al t a, 199 F. 3d 552, 567 ( 1st

Ci r . 1999) ) .

-35-


36/48

8. Benef i t to Di Masi

Di Masi cl ai ms t hat t he di st r i ct cour t commi t t ed

pr ej udi ci al er r or when i t r ef used t o i nst r uct t he j ur y, wi t h

r espect t o t he extor t i on char ge, t hat t he payment s t o Vi t al e or

McDonough must have been a "benef i t " t o hi m. 11 The di st r i ct cour t

r el i ed on Uni t ed St at es v. Gr een, 350 U. S. 415 ( 1956) , i n whi ch t he

Cour t st ated t hat extor t i on " i n no way depends on havi ng a di r ect

benef i t conf er r ed on t he per son who obt ai ns t he pr oper t y. " I d. at

420. Di Masi argues t hat Gr een l eaves open t he r equi r ement f or at

l east an i ndi r ect benef i t . The Thi r d and Fi f t h Ci r cui t s have

r ej ect ed t hi s ar gument . See Uni t ed St at es v. J acobs, 451 F. 2d 530,

535 ( 5t h Ci r . 1971) ( "Under 1951 . . . i t i s not necessar y t o

show t hat a per son char ged wi t h extor t i on or at t empt ed extor t i on

act ual l y recei ved any benef i t . " ) ; Uni t ed St at es v. Pr ovenzano, 334

F. 2d 678, 685- 86 ( 3d Ci r . 1964) ( "We hol d t hat i t i s not necessary

t o pr ove t hat t he ext or t i oner hi msel f , di r ect l y or i ndi r ect l y,

r ecei ved t he f r ui t s of hi s ext or t i on or any benef i t s t her ef r om. ") .

On t he ot her hand, t he Ei ght h Ci r cui t has i ndi cat ed t hat at l east

i ndi r ect payment s may be r equi r ed. See Uni t ed St at es v. Evans, 30

F. 3d 1015, 1019 ( 8t h Ci r . 1994) ( "The Hobbs Act r equi r es proof ,

11 By cont r ast , t he di st r i ct cour t r ul ed t hat a benef i t t oDi Masi was r equi r ed t o pr ove t he honest servi ces f r aud count s, andbecause evi dence of benef i t t o Di Masi was l acki ng wi t h r espect t ot he payment s t o McDonough - - as opposed t o t hose made t o Topazi oand Vi t al e - - t he payment s t o McDonough were onl y consi dered f ort he ext or t i on count .

-36-


37/48

among ot her el ement s, t hat t he def endant r ecei ved a benef i t i n

exchange f or t he per f ormance or nonperf ormance of an of f i ci al

act . " ) .

We need not r esol ve t hi s i ssue, however , as any er r or i s

ul t i mat el y har ml ess. See Neder v. Uni t ed St at es, 527 U. S. 1, 9

( 1999) ( not i ng t hat an i nst r uct i on t hat omi t s an el ement of t he

of f ense "does not necessari l y r ender a cr i mi nal t r i al f undament al l y

unf ai r or an unr el i abl e vehi cl e f or det er mi ni ng gui l t or

i nnocence. " ( emphasi s i n or i gi nal ) ) . "Har ml ess er r or r evi ew

r equi r es ascer t ai ni ng ' whet her i t appear s beyond a reasonabl e doubt

t hat t he er r or compl ai ned of di d not cont r i but e t o t he ver di ct

obt ai ned. ' " Uni t ed St at es v. Newel l , 658 F. 3d 1, 17, n. 19 ( 1st

Ci r . 2011) ( quot i ng Neder , 527 U. S. at 15) . Her e, assumi ng t hat a

benef i t t o Di Masi was a requi r ed el ement , t he evi dence was "more

t han suf f i ci ent t o suppor t t he convi cti ons. " I d. Fi r st , t he

payment s t hr ough Topazi o - - whi ch are not cl ai med t o be subj ect t o

t he r ef er r ed "benef i t " i nst r ucti on - - i ndi sput abl y benef i t t ed

Di Masi . Second, gi ven t hat t he j ur y had t o f i nd t hat payment s wer e

"gi ven t o Vi t al e f or Di Masi ' s benef i t " t o sust ai n t he convi ct i ons

on t he honest servi ces f r aud count s, we ar e conf i dent t hat t he same

r esul t woul d have obt ai ned i f t hey wer e so i nst r uct ed on t he

extor t i on char ge.

-37-


38/48

9. McCor mi ck I nst r uct i on

Di Masi r esur r ect s t he argument t hat McCormi ck requi r es

an expl i ci t agr eement bet ween hi m and Lal l y, and t hat t he j ur y

shoul d t her ef or e have been so i nst r uct ed. Havi ng al r eady r ej ect ed

t he ar gument t hat an expl i ci t agr eement i s r equi r ed, we must al so

concl ude t hat t he j ur y i nst r ucti on cl ai m necessar i l y f ai l s.

10. St at e Law

Di Masi next ar gues t hat t he di st r i ct cour t shoul d have

i nst r uct ed t he j ur y on Massachuset t s l aw concer ni ng conf l i ct of

i nt er est and at t or ney- cl i ent conf i dent i al i t y. Thi s i ssue came t o

t he f or e as a resul t of t est i mony f r om Gover nor Pat r i ck and

Secr et ary Ki r wan t hat t hey woul d have handl ed t he PM cont r act

di f f er ent l y had t hey known of t he payment s t o Di Masi and Vi t al e.

Di Masi mai nt ai ns t hat st at e l aw per mi t s hi mt o r epr esent cl i ent s - -

l i ke Cognos - - on mat t er s wher e t he st at e i s a par t y. He al so

suggest s t hat he i s not r equi r ed by st at e l aw t o di scl ose hi s

pr i vat e l aw pr act i ce cl i ent s. Thus, he ar gues t hat a "f ul l

expl i cat i on of Massachuset t s l aw was r equi r ed t o al l ow t he j ur y t o

di st i ngui sh bet ween br i ber y and ot her per mi ssi bl e and i mper mi ssi bl e

act s, t o under st and Di masi ' s di scl osur e r equi r ement s and t o

di f f er ent i at e Di Masi ' s of f i ci al act s f r om hi s pr i vat e act s. "

Speci f i cal l y, Di Masi r equest ed an i nst r uct i on not i ng t hat

Massachuset t s l aw al l ows l egi sl at or s t o "r epr esent cl i ent s i n t hei r

deal i ngs wi t h t he st at e pur suant t o a pr ovi si on of t he st at e' s

-38-


39/48

conf l i ct of i nt er est l aw. " See Mass. Gen. Laws. ch. 268A, 4. We

concl ude, however , t hat t he out come her e i s cont r ol l ed by Ur ci ol i

I I , i n whi ch t he appel l ant cl ai med t hat t he j ur y shoul d have been

i nst r uct ed on Rhode I sl and l aw t hat al l ows, i nt er al i a, a st at e

l egi sl at or t o engage i n pr i vat e empl oyment wi t hout cr eat i ng a

conf l i ct of i nt er est . Ur ci ol i I I , 613 F. 3d at 15. The appel l ant

t her e f ur t her ar gued t hat st at e l aw mi ght out l i ne t he cont our s of

a st at e l egi sl at or ' s dut i es such t hat t he j ur y coul d bet t er anal yze

whet her t he l egi sl at or had f ai l ed t o per f or m t hem. I d. We

concl uded t hat t he i nst r uct i on was unnecessar y because t he

appel l ant was char ged wi t h qui d pr o quo br i ber y, not f or f ai l i ng t o

di scl ose a conf l i ct , and t hat " [ n] ot hi ng i n Rhode I sl and l aw

pur por t s t o aut hor i ze or pr ot ect such conduct . " I d. ( quot i ng

Uni t ed St at es v. Ur ci ol i , 513 F. 3d 290, 298- 99 ( 1st Ci r . 2008)

( "Ur ci ol i I ") ) . Mor eover , we obser ved t hat such an i nst r uct i on

coul d have "mi sl ed t he j ur y i nt o t hi nki ng [ t he st at e l aw] coul d

excuse br i ber y. " I d. at 16.

The same r esul t obt ai ns her e. As we have al r eady

det er mi ned, t he j ur y was proper l y i nst r uct ed on t he br i ber y and

extor t i on char ges. The concer n t hat t he j ur y coul d have been

mi sl ed i nt o concl udi ng t hat st at e l aw i nsul at ed Di Masi ' s conduct i s

j ust as appar ent her e as i t was i n Ur ci ol i I I . I n addi t i on, t he

j ury was i nst r uct ed t hat payment s t o Di Masi f or provi di ng l egal

ser vi ces or r ef er r al s coul d not f or m t he basi s f or a convi ct i on.

-39-


40/48

To t he ext ent t hat f ai l ure t o di scl ose a conf l i ct of i nter est was

an i ssue, i t ar ose onl y i n t he cont ext of t he gover nment ' s bur den

of pr ovi ng t hat t he put at i ve scheme to def r aud i nvol ved a mat er i al

f al sehood, whi ch i ncl udes non- di scl osur es. See Neder , 527 U. S. at

25. Whi l e Di Masi ar gues t hat t he cour t ' s i nst r uct i on coul d have

r esul t ed i n t he j ur y convi ct i ng hi m f or an undi scl osed conf l i ct - -

a r esul t whi ch coul d r un af oul of Ski l l i ng - - t he r ecor d shows t hat

t he j ur y was i nst r uct ed t o consi der t he undi scl osed conf l i ct onl y

f or pur poses of mat er i al i t y and, most i mpor t ant l y, af t er i t had

f ound t hat Di Masi had part i ci pated i n a scheme i nvol vi ng payment s

exchanged f or of f i ci al act s. Ther e bei ng no i ndi cat i on t hat

Massachuset t s l aw woul d al l ow Di Masi not t o di scl ose br i bes

( "payment s made f or of f i ci al act s" ) , t her e was no er r or i n r ef usi ng

t o i nst r uct t he j ur y on t he Massachuset t s l aw as Di Masi r equest ed.

C. Evi dent i ar y I ssues

We revi ew t he di st r i ct cour t ' s admi ssi on of evi dence f or

abuse of di scr et i on. 12 Uni t ed St at es v. Tavar es, 705 F. 3d 4, 15

( 1st Ci r . ) , cer t . deni ed, 133 S. Ct . 2371 ( 2013) . Two evi dent i ar y

cl ai ms ar e pr esent ed.

12 The par t i es cl ash over whet her cer t ai n of Di Masi ' sevi dent i ary cl ai ms ar e unpr eserved and shoul d t her ef or e be revi ewedonl y f or pl ai n er r or . Because t he ar gument s f ai l under even t hel ess def er ent i al abuse of di scret i on st andar d, we decl i ne t or esol ve t he di sput e.

-40-


41/48

1. Test i mony by Pat r i ck and Ki r wan

As previ ousl y noted, both Secretary Ki r wan and Governor

Pat r i ck t est i f i ed t hat t he Pat r i ck admi ni st r at i on woul d not have

execut ed t he PM cont r act i f t hey had known t hat Di Masi was

r ecei vi ng r ef er r al f ees t hat or i gi nat ed f r omCognos i n exchange f or

hi s wor k i n st eer i ng t he cont r act t o Cognos or i f t hey knew t hat

Vi t al e was recei vi ng a $500, 000 payment f r om t he deal . The

Gover nor al so t est i f i ed t hat he woul d have obt ai ned advi ce f r omt he

st ate Ethi cs Commi ss i on r egardi ng t he $500, 000 payment . Each

of f i ci al ' s t est i mony was admi t t ed over def ense obj ect i ons.

Di Masi argues t hat t he t est i mony shoul d not have been

admi t t ed because he had no obl i gat i on t o di scl ose the r el at i onshi p

among hi msel f , Cognos, and Topazi o. He f ur t her cont ends t hat t he

r ef er ence t o the Et hi cs Commi ssi on cr eat ed a r i sk t hat he woul d be

convi ct ed f or an et hi cs vi ol at i on such as an i mpr oper conf l i ct of

i nt er est . We di sagr ee. Ther e i s no di sput e t hat mat er i al i t y i s an

el ement of honest servi ces f r aud, and t he r eact i ons of t wo st at e

of f i ci al s i nt egr al t o t he cont r act pr ocess wer e r el evant t o t hat

i ssue. And at t he r i sk of r epet i t i on, we agai n not e t hat t he j ur y

was char ged wi t h assessi ng whether Di Masi had been i nvol ved i n a

qui d pr o quo br i bery scheme, not whet her he had f ai l ed t o di scl ose

a conf l i ct of i nt er est . Ther e was no r ever si bl e er r or i n t he

admi ssi on of t he t est i mony. To t he extent t hat Di Masi ar gues t hat

t he cour t i mpr oper l y bal anced t he test i mony' s probat i ve val ue

-41-


42/48

agai nst any unf ai r pr ej udi ce, i t suf f i ces t o obser ve t hat "Onl y

r ar el y - - and i n ext r aor di nar i l y compel l i ng ci r cumst ances - - wi l l

we, f r om t he vi st a of a col d appel l at e r ecor d, r ever se a di st r i ct

cour t ' s on- t he- spot j udgment concer ni ng t he r el at i ve wei ghi ng of

pr obat i ve val ue and unf ai r ef f ect . " Uni t ed St at es v. Pi r es, 642

F. 3d 1, 12 ( 1st Ci r . 2011) . Thi s i s not one of t hose r ar e

occasi ons.

2. Post - Conspi r acy St at ement s

Di Masi ar gues t hat hi s post - conspi r acy st at ement s t o

Topazi o, hi s Communi cat i ons Di r ect or Davi d Guar i no and hi s Chi ef of

St af f Mar yann Cal i a af t er t he Mar ch 2008 pr ess i nqui r i es began

shoul d not have been admi t t ed as ei t her pr oof of t he conspi r acy or

t o show consci ousness of gui l t . Topazi o t est i f i ed t hat af t er medi a

account s wer e publ i shed about t he Cognos cont r act , Di Masi sai d t o

hi m t hat i t "woul d have been ni ce i f [ Topazi o] had l ost " t he

por t i on of hi s check r egi st er t hat showed t he $25, 000 payment t o

Di Masi and al so t hat Topazi o shoul d i nser t case names i nt o t he

r egi ster t o, i n ef f ect , l egi t i mi ze t he t r ansact i ons af t er t he f act .

Guar i no t est i f i ed t hat dur i ng di scussi ons i n t he af t er mat h of t he

newspaper ar t i cl es, Di Masi di d not r eveal hi s i nvol vement wi t h

st at e of f i ci al s i n t he PM pr ocur ement , deni ed speaki ng wi t h Pepol i ,

deni ed knowl edge of Lal l y' s i nvol vement wi t h Cognos, and sai d t hat

he was unaware of a r el at i onshi p or payment s between Topazi o and

Cognos. Dur i ng cr oss- exami nat i on by t he government , Cal i a

-42-


43/48

conf i r med her gr and j ur y t est i mony t hat Di Masi had deni ed knowl edge

of t he Cognos mat t er or Topazi o' s connect i on t o i t . The cour t ' s

gener al i nst r uct i ons i ncl uded t he f ol l owi ng:

Wi t h r egar d t o t he al l egedl y f al se st at ement s,you shoul d f i r st deci de whet her t he st at ementwas made and whet her i t was f al se. Si mi l ar l y,you shoul d deci de whether a def endant di dsomet hi ng t o conceal i nf or mat i on. I f so, youshoul d deci de whether any f al se st atement oract i on t o conceal i s evi dence of consci ousnessof gui l t concer ni ng any or al l of t he cr i meschar ged i n t hi s case. You shoul d consi dert hat t here may be r easons f or a person' sact i ons t hat ar e f ul l y consi st ent wi t hi nnocence of t he cr i mes char ged i n t hi s case.I n addi t i on, f eel i ngs of gui l t may exi st i ni nnocent peopl e and f al se st atement s do notnecessar i l y r ef l ect actual gui l t of par t i cul arcri mes. I t i s up t o you t o deci de i f t her e i spr oof of f al se st at ement s or act s ofconceal ment and i f so whet her t hey show aconsci ousness of gui l t concer ni ng t he cr i meschar ged her e. I f t hese f act s ar e pr oven, youmust deci de what wei ght or si gni f i cance t ogi ve t hem.

Di Masi f i r st ar gues t hat t he di st r i ct cour t er r ed i n

denyi ng hi s r equest f or a so- cal l ed Ander son- Munson l i mi t i ng

i nst r uct i on t hat woul d have cabi ned t he j ur y' s consi der at i on of

such evi dence t o t he i ndi vi dual whose st at ement or act i ons wer e i n

di sput e. See Ander son v. Uni t ed St at es, 417 U. S. 211 ( 1974) ;

Uni t ed St at es v. Munson, 819 F. 2d 337 ( 1st Ci r . 1987) . We r ej ect

t he ar gument f or t he f undament al r eason t hat Di Masi f ai l s t o

-43-


44/48

expl ai n how t hi s i nst r uct i on woul d appl y i n t hi s case, si nce t he

st at ement s at i ssue wer e made by hi m. 13

Asi de f r om t he i nst r uct i on, Di Masi ar gues t hat t he

st atement s were i nadmi ss i bl e because t he government ' s case l acked

a suf f i ci ent f oundat i on of ext r i nsi c evi dence t o suppor t an

i nf er ence of gui l t of t he cr i mes wi t h whi ch he was char ged. He

dr aws thi s requi r ement f r omcases i nvol vi ng f l i ght evi dence. See,

e. g. , Uni t ed St at es v. Ot er o- Mndez, 273 F. 3d 46, 53 ( 1st Ci r .

2001) . But t o t he ext ent t hat such a r equi r ement may appl y here,

we r ef er back t o our di scussi on of t he suf f i ci ency of t he evi dence

and f i nd a suf f i ci ent pr edi cat e t o suppor t t he i nf er ence. Di Masi

f ur t her ar gues t hat hi s st at ement s t o Guar i no and Cal i a wer e

"possi bl y over l y nar r ow, but l i t er al l y t r ue. " Thi s ar gument mi sses

t he mar k, as t he j ur y was i nst r uct ed t o det er mi ne f i r st t he f al si t y

of t he st at ement s bef or e det er mi ni ng what , i f any, wei ght t o gi ve

t hem. By acknowl edgi ng t hat he was at l east bei ng cagey wi t h hi s

cl ose associ at es, Di Masi essent i al l y concedes, as he must , t hat t he

mat t er was wor t hy of t he j ur y' s consi der at i on.

Regardi ng t he comment s t o Topazi o about t he check

r egi st er , even i f , as Di Masi poi nt s out , Topazi o sai d he t hought

Di Masi was bei ng sar cast i c, not l i t er al , t he j ur y was f ul l y capabl e

of assessi ng t he i mport of t he comment . And whi l e t here are

13 The gover nment ar gues t hat t hi s shor t comi ng const i t ut eswai ver . See Uni t ed St at es v. Zanni no, 895 F. 2d 1, 17 ( 1st Ci r .1990) . Regar dl ess of t he r eason, i t i s a f at al def ect .

-44-


45/48

mul t i pl e possi bl e i nt er pr et at i ons of Di Masi ' s r equest t hat Topazi o

add t he cl i ent names, we bel i eve t hat t he j ur y i nst r uct i ons

amel i or at ed any possi bi l i t y of i mpr oper use of t he t est i mony.

D. Sent enci ng

Di Masi was sent enced t o ni nety- si x mont hs' i mpr i sonment ,

and McDonough r ecei ved an ei ght y- f our mont h sent ence. Bot h men

chal l enge the subst ant i ve r easonabl eness of t hei r sent ences. 14 We

r evi ew t he sent ences f or abuse of di scr et i on, t aki ng i nt o account

t he t ot al i t y of t he ci r cumst ances. Uni t ed St at es v. Zaval a- Mar t ,

715 F. 3d 44, 50 ( 1st Ci r . 2013) . "When i t comes t o subst ant i ve

r easonabl eness, ' a sent enci ng cour t ' s ul t i mat e r esponsi bi l i t y i s t o

ar t i cul at e a pl ausi bl e r at i onal e and ar r i ve at a sensi bl e r esul t . ' "

Rodr i guez- Reyes, 714 F. 3d at 11 ( quot i ng Uni t ed St at es v. Car r asco-

de- J ess, 589 F. 3d 22, 30 ( 1st Ci r . 2009) ) . The appel l ant s f ace a

heavy bur den t o "adduce f ai r l y power f ul mi t i gat i ng r easons and

per suade us t hat t he di st r i ct cour t was unr easonabl e i n bal anci ng

pr os and cons despi t e t he l at i t ude i mpl i ci t i n sayi ng t hat a

sent ence must be ' r easonabl e. ' " Uni t ed St at es v. Mader a- Or t i z, 637

F. 3d 26, 30 ( 1st Ci r . 2011) .

14 Di Masi ' s Sent enci ng Gui del i ne r ange was 235 t o 293 mont hs;McDonough' s t otal ed 188 t o 235 mont hs. The cal cul at i on f or each

was i dent i cal , save f or t he appl i cat i on of a l ower base of f ensel evel t o McDonough because he was not a publ i c of f i ci al . Wei ncl ude t hi s i nf or mat i on f or cont ext , as nei t her appel l antchal l enges hi s r espect i ve Gui del i nes cal cul at i on. Di Masi andMcDonough had request ed sent ences of 36 and 24 months,r espect i vel y, whi l e t he government sought sent ences of 151 and 120mont hs.

-45-


46/48

1. Di Masi

Al t hough hi s argument s cont ai n scant det ai l , Di Masi

asser t s sever al basi c poi nt s. Fi r st , he ar gues t hat hi s ei ght - year

pr i son t er mi s a si gni f i cant i ncr ease over ot her sent ences i mposed

i n t he Di st r i ct of Massachuset t s f or what he descr i bes as " si mi l ar

cr i mes. " 15 Rel at edl y, he ar gues t hat Lal l y' s 18- mont h sent ence i s

evi dence t hat Di Masi was puni shed f or goi ng t o t r i al . Nei t her

argument persuades us. As t o t he f i r st , we have obser ved t hat

consi der at i on of sent enci ng di spar i t y pr i mar i l y t a

United States v. McDonough, 1st Cir. (2013)

Documents

Transcript of United States v. McDonough, 1st Cir. (2013)