United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2010-12-27
18usc1341: author: Fable · not independently reviewed
Case and law context
Role: applied; posture: criminal; alderman's housing coordinator convicted by jury of honest-services mail fraud (1341 + 1346, pay-to-play bribes for zoning support letters), acquitted of 666 bribery; appeal challenges only the admission of evidence of other shakedowns (relevance, Rule 403); sufficiency of no element is challenged; result: claimant-won; claim: with 18 U.S.C. 1346 (honest services)
Uncertainty
None recorded
Misfit
The opinion decides only evidentiary questions (relevance of other-acts evidence, the abandoned "inextricably intertwined" doctrine, Rule 404(b), Rule 403). These are tied to `scheme` and `intent` but are not rulings on them; recorded as not-reached / rule-announced / procedural blocks so they are not instances. The notation has no "evidence admissible to prove element X" ruling type, and `result claimant-won` (conviction affirmed) attaches to a case with only one instance block.
Honest-services fraud is a different claim from the law file's property-fraud claim: its elements (fiduciary duty, bribe or kickback, quid pro quo) have no ids, and `honest-services-boundary` is a boundary marker whose satisfied/not-satisfied meaning is undefined. Recorded as satisfied [conceded] = "theory is within Skilling's bribery core, undisputed"; the scheme/intent blocks here are scheme and intent to deprive of honest services, not of property, which the ids cannot show.
The jury acquitted on the two 666 bribery counts while convicting on bribery-based honest-services mail fraud; the opinion notes it without comment and the notation cannot relate counts under different statutes. The 1001 false-statement count (and the evidence ruling about the Maryland Street property that supports it) is another statute and is not recorded.
Known (one basis per block): the honest-services ruling is a legal conclusion on an undisputed characterisation ("the parties do not argue otherwise"); recorded as [conceded] with a CAVEAT gloss, which loses the fact that the court did state the conclusion in its own voice.
Party roles inside a multi-person scheme (central schemer = the alderman, who pleaded guilty; defendant = necessary participant; other staff as collectors) matter to the admissibility holding and cannot be typed.
B · Case × element grid
Top-level elements follow claim order in panels of up to six elements. Case rows repeat across panels. Every recorded block retains its holding and basis; multiple blocks are not merged into a case-level verdict. ✓ satisfied · ✗ not satisfied · ○ not reached · · not addressed. Muted blocks are not counted. Sub-element evidence remains on case and element pages.
Elements 1–6 of 7
| Case | Scheme or artifice to defraud | Traditional money or property as an object | Material deception | Knowing participation with intent to defraud | Statutory mailing or carrier act | Mailing for execution of the scheme |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| United States v. Boone — 628 F.3d 927 (2010) · United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2010 (18usc1341: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) | ○ not reached · basis not recordedNot counted: rule-announced/procedural | ○ not reached · basis not recordedNot counted: applied/merits | ○ not reached · basis not recordedNot counted: applied/merits | ○ not reached · basis not recordedNot counted: rule-announced/procedural | ○ not reached · basis not recordedNot counted: applied/merits | ○ not reached · basis not recordedNot counted: applied/merits |
Elements 7–7 of 7
| Case | Separate section 1346 theory; outside property-fraud claim |
|---|---|
| United States v. Boone — 628 F.3d 927 (2010) · United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2010 (18usc1341: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) |
Instances and excluded annotation blocks
| Case | Element | Holding and scope | Pattern | Exact source quotations |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| United States v. Boone — 628 F.3d 927 (2010) · United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2010 — not reached (18usc1341: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) | Mailing for execution of the scheme | not_reached Excluded from merits counts applied / merits claim: with 18 U.S.C. 1346 (honest services) The court recites that the neighbour-notice mailing furthered the scheme and rejects only the argument that the mailing's date limits proof of the scheme; no furtherance ruling. | Unspecified route | No source quotation recorded for this block. |
| United States v. Boone — 628 F.3d 927 (2010) · United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2010 — satisfied · conceded (18usc1341: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) | Separate section 1346 theory; outside property-fraud claim | satisfied Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: conceded; claim: with 18 U.S.C. 1346 (honest services); count: Count IV; theory: post-Skilling: bribes demanded for an alderman's official support; subject: count=Count IV; theory=post-Skilling: bribes demanded for an alderman's official support The conviction rests on the 1346 theory, and the court notes that it survives Skilling because the scheme alleged is bribery. `satisfied` = the scheme falls inside the bribery/kickback core, not a property fraud. CAVEAT: thin authority. The point was uncontested ("the parties do not argue otherwise") and is disposed of in one short paragraph of an appeal that challenges only evidentiary rulings; the court speaks of "the allegations underlying the honest services conviction" and reviews no evidence of bribery. Basis is therefore [conceded], not a contested ruling of law. | bribery/payment-demanded-for-officials-letter-of-support | Pursuant to that scheme, developers who wanted to build or rehabilitate property in the 20th Ward were required to pay a bribe to Troutman’s office in order to gain support that they needed to proceed, such as letters of support from her for zoning changes, alley access, and curb cutting.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_628.jsonl#/f3d/628/0927-01; Unicode character offsets [1237:1526] (end exclusive); SHA-256 9979d619f66f35ce9494693ba57345ffa2273253514097f142ccfe8a224836b8.The allegations were that a payment was made in order to obtain the services that the alderman’s office is supposed to provide.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_628.jsonl#/f3d/628/0927-01; Unicode character offsets [2658:2785] (end exclusive); SHA-256 9979d619f66f35ce9494693ba57345ffa2273253514097f142ccfe8a224836b8.Accordingly, the Court held that in order to avoid vagueness problems, § 1346 must be read as criminalizing only bribery and kickback schemes.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_628.jsonl#/f3d/628/0927-01; Unicode character offsets [2293:2435] (end exclusive); SHA-256 9979d619f66f35ce9494693ba57345ffa2273253514097f142ccfe8a224836b8.Thus, the allegations underlying the honest services conviction in this case involved the type of bribery conduct that the Court preserved in Skilling, and which constitutes criminal conduct under § 1346.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_628.jsonl#/f3d/628/0927-01; Unicode character offsets [2786:2990] (end exclusive); SHA-256 9979d619f66f35ce9494693ba57345ffa2273253514097f142ccfe8a224836b8. |
| United States v. Boone — 628 F.3d 927 (2010) · United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2010 — not reached (18usc1341: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) | Knowing participation with intent to defraud | not_reached Excluded from merits counts rule-announced / procedural claim: with 18 U.S.C. 1346 (honest services); party: Boone (housing coordinator; not the central schemer); theory: admissibility of others' open shakedowns to show the defendant's knowledge (ostrich instruction given); subject: party=Boone (housing coordinator; not the central schemer); theory=admissibility of others' open shakedowns to show the defendant's knowledge (ostrich instruction given) Relevance ruling only: the court holds the evidence admissible on knowledge/intent (and says it would also qualify under Rule 404(b)); it does not review whether intent was sufficiently proved. The jury found intent; the conscious-avoidance instruction is quoted but not challenged. | inferred-knowledge/open-and-blatant-practice-in-defendants-office | In that capacity, one of Boone’s jobs was to issue the aforementioned letters of support for the alderman, and those letters bore his name as the contact person should the recipients have any concerns, and also bore both his and Troutman’s initials.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_628.jsonl#/f3d/628/0927-01; Unicode character offsets [12750:12999] (end exclusive); SHA-256 9979d619f66f35ce9494693ba57345ffa2273253514097f142ccfe8a224836b8.That evidence again established that the requests for money were not made in a secretive manner, but rather that such business was openly conducted in the presence of others in the office, and that such requests were made in the first or second contacts with the victims seeking the letters of support.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_628.jsonl#/f3d/628/0927-01; Unicode character offsets [28894:29196] (end exclusive); SHA-256 9979d619f66f35ce9494693ba57345ffa2273253514097f142ccfe8a224836b8.She did not identify Boone as one of the individuals that she remembered at that meeting.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_628.jsonl#/f3d/628/0927-01; Unicode character offsets [7928:8017] (end exclusive); SHA-256 9979d619f66f35ce9494693ba57345ffa2273253514097f142ccfe8a224836b8.Therefore, the government could prove knowledge by demonstrating that Boone must have known of the scheme to defraud.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_628.jsonl#/f3d/628/0927-01; Unicode character offsets [27067:27184] (end exclusive); SHA-256 9979d619f66f35ce9494693ba57345ffa2273253514097f142ccfe8a224836b8.In order to prove mail fraud, the government was required to establish: (1) that Boone participated in a scheme to defraud; (2) that he did so knowingly and with the intent to defraud; and (3) that Boone used or caused the use of the mails in furtherance of the scheme.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_628.jsonl#/f3d/628/0927-01; Unicode character offsets [17995:18264] (end exclusive); SHA-256 9979d619f66f35ce9494693ba57345ffa2273253514097f142ccfe8a224836b8.Accordingly, evidence of the blatant and open nature of the requests for payments, and of the large number of individuals in the office who were participants in the scheme, was relevant to demonstrate that Boone must have known of the scheme.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_628.jsonl#/f3d/628/0927-01; Unicode character offsets [27709:27951] (end exclusive); SHA-256 9979d619f66f35ce9494693ba57345ffa2273253514097f142ccfe8a224836b8. |
| United States v. Boone — 628 F.3d 927 (2010) · United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2010 — not reached (18usc1341: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) | Statutory mailing or carrier act | not_reached Excluded from merits counts applied / merits claim: with 18 U.S.C. 1346 (honest services) The charged mailing was sent by the bribe-payer himself: his notice to neighbours required for the rezoning. Not challenged on appeal. | Unspecified route | No source quotation recorded for this block. |
| United States v. Boone — 628 F.3d 927 (2010) · United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2010 — not reached (18usc1341: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) | Material deception | not_reached Excluded from merits counts applied / merits claim: with 18 U.S.C. 1346 (honest services) | Unspecified route | No source quotation recorded for this block. |
| United States v. Boone — 628 F.3d 927 (2010) · United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2010 — not reached (18usc1341: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) | Traditional money or property as an object | not_reached Excluded from merits counts applied / merits claim: with 18 U.S.C. 1346 (honest services) Not in issue: the charged object is the ward residents' right to the alderman's honest services under 1346, not money or property (although developers paid cash). | Unspecified route | No source quotation recorded for this block. |
| United States v. Boone — 628 F.3d 927 (2010) · United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2010 — not reached (18usc1341: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) | Scheme or artifice to defraud | not_reached Excluded from merits counts rule-announced / procedural claim: with 18 U.S.C. 1346 (honest services); count: Count IV; theory: admissibility of shakedowns of other developers, after the charged mailing and without the defendant present, as direct proof of the scheme; subject: count=Count IV; theory=admissibility of shakedowns of other developers, after the charged mailing and without the defendant present, as direct proof of the scheme Evidentiary ruling, not a sufficiency ruling: the scheme is not bounded by the date of the charged mailing, so later incidents involving other office staff are direct evidence of it (subject to Rule 403 and to being the same scheme). The refused-payment incident mattered because it showed the "donation" was a quid pro quo. The existence of the scheme itself was found by the jury and not challenged. | uncharged-later-shakedowns-by-co-schemers | A few days after that incident, Greer went to Troutman’s office and spoke with Boone, who informed him that for a $10,000 cash payment he would be allowed to proceed without a permit.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_628.jsonl#/f3d/628/0927-01; Unicode character offsets [5458:5641] (end exclusive); SHA-256 9979d619f66f35ce9494693ba57345ffa2273253514097f142ccfe8a224836b8.Boone then stated that in order to obtain the letter Greer would have to pay $15,000 to the office.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_628.jsonl#/f3d/628/0927-01; Unicode character offsets [6517:6616] (end exclusive); SHA-256 9979d619f66f35ce9494693ba57345ffa2273253514097f142ccfe8a224836b8.Hall informed Plomin that she had to make a campaign contribution of $1,500 in order to obtain a letter of support from Troutman. Plomin ultimately decided against paying that money, and she did not obtain the letter of support.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_628.jsonl#/f3d/628/0927-01; Unicode character offsets [8288:8516] (end exclusive); SHA-256 9979d619f66f35ce9494693ba57345ffa2273253514097f142ccfe8a224836b8.Once the checks were cashed, Pattison received the letter of support from Troutman.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_628.jsonl#/f3d/628/0927-01; Unicode character offsets [9424:9507] (end exclusive); SHA-256 9979d619f66f35ce9494693ba57345ffa2273253514097f142ccfe8a224836b8.The mailing is a jurisdictional prerequisite which must be satisfied in order to invoke federal criminal prosecution, but it does not constitute an endpoint beyond which the government may not provide evidence of the scheme.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_628.jsonl#/f3d/628/0927-01; Unicode character offsets [23080:23304] (end exclusive); SHA-256 9979d619f66f35ce9494693ba57345ffa2273253514097f142ccfe8a224836b8.Moreover, the definition of the scheme itself is a limiting principle, in that only evidence of the same scheme as opposed to a related or distinct scheme, is admissible.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_628.jsonl#/f3d/628/0927-01; Unicode character offsets [24042:24212] (end exclusive); SHA-256 9979d619f66f35ce9494693ba57345ffa2273253514097f142ccfe8a224836b8.Because that evidence was directly relevant to establish a critical component of the scheme, it was admissible as direct evidence of the offense.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_628.jsonl#/f3d/628/0927-01; Unicode character offsets [25783:25928] (end exclusive); SHA-256 9979d619f66f35ce9494693ba57345ffa2273253514097f142ccfe8a224836b8. |