U.S. v. Blandford
| Decision Date | 07 September 1994 |
| Docket Number | No. 93-6011,93-6011 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Donald J. BLANDFORD, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
Terry Cushing, Asst. U.S. Atty. (briefed), Stephen G. Frye, Asst. U.S. Atty., Stephen B. Pence, Asst. U.S. Atty. (argued), Louisville, KY, Edwin J. Walbourn, III, Office of U.S. Atty., Covington, KY, for U.S.
Morton Holbrook, Allen W. Holbrook (argued and briefed), Holbrook, Wible, Sullivan & Helmers, Owensboro, KY, for Donald J. Blandford.
Before NELSON, Circuit Judge; GUY, * Senior Circuit Judge; and QUIST, District Judge. **
GUY, Senior Circuit Judge, delivered the opinion of the Court. NELSON, Circuit Judge (pp. 712-14), delivered a separate concurring opinion. QUIST, District Judge (pp. 714-15), delivered a separate opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part in Judge GUY's opinion, and concurring in Judge NELSON's opinion.
Following a jury trial, defendant was convicted of (1) extortion, in violation of the Hobbs Act, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1951; (2) racketeering, in violation of the federal RICO statute, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1962(c); and (3) making false statements to federal investigators, in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1001. On appeal, defendant challenges these convictions as well as his sentence. For the following reasons, we affirm.
This case arises out of an FBI investigation into public corruption in Kentucky. The investigation, dubbed "Operation BOPTROT," focused on certain members of the Kentucky General Assembly who were suspected of extorting cash payments in exchange for assurances that they would take a particular stance on legislation pertaining to the horse racing industry. Initiated in September 1990, Operation BOPTROT ultimately ensnared several public officials, including Donald J. Blandford, Speaker of Kentucky's House of Representatives. The circumstances that led to Blandford's conviction are as follows.
At all times relevant to this appeal, Riverside Downs, a harness racing track located in Henderson, Kentucky, cooperated with the FBI. As part of its probe, the FBI directed Riverside Downs to hire John "Jay" Spurrier ostensibly to promote the track's interests in the state assembly. 1 Spurrier was a logical choice; a prominent lobbyist from Frankfort, Kentucky, he chaired Kentucky's Harness Racing Commission. On Spurrier's advice, Riverside Downs then hired William McBee. McBee, also a lobbyist, was a former state representative who had recently lost a bid for re-election.
An important part of Spurrier's and McBee's work on behalf of Riverside Downs was their effort to stifle any proposed legislation that would restrict the track's ability to simulcast thoroughbred races. In particular, Riverside Downs, like other harness racing tracks, was concerned about the possible enactment of "breed-to-breed" legislation. Under such legislation, race tracks would be able to simulcast only those races involving similar breeds of horses.
Spurrier became aware of Operation BOPTROT after he and McBee had decided to assist Riverside Downs's effort to block any proposed breed-to-breed legislation. Spurrier agreed to cooperate with the investigation and subsequently informed the FBI that Blandford, among others, would be willing to accept money in exchange for his opposition to breed-to-breed legislation. 2 Spurrier added, however, that Blandford would accept payment only from McBee, who, at the time, was still unaware of the investigation (not to mention Spurrier's complicity). Although the FBI did not immediately attempt to bring McBee into the fold, McBee nevertheless became an unwitting participant, assisting the investigation on at least three occasions by passing FBI money to Blandford.
The first such occasion took place in late January 1992 while various lobbyists, state legislators (including Spurrier, McBee, and Blandford), and their guests were on a trip to Florida. Similar trips, which were financed by various interest groups (the harness racing industry among them), had been taking place on an annual basis for a number of years. Prior to leaving on the trip, Spurrier and McBee discussed the possibility of soliciting, by way of an illegitimate payment, Blandford's assistance in defeating breed-to-breed legislation. To this end, McBee was provided with $500 by Chris Koumas, a Riverside Downs representative who was cooperating with the investigation. Once in Florida, McBee handed the money over to Blandford. In so doing, McBee described the payment as "walking around" money. He did not mention breed-to-breed legislation 3 nor did he tape record what occurred during the transaction. As McBee would later testify, however, Blandford had accepted money from him on at least one prior occasion (in 1990) knowing that the money was intended to influence his position with respect to pending horse racing legislation.
The FBI arranged for McBee to make a second payment to Blandford soon after Spurrier, McBee, and Blandford returned from the Florida junket. This time the transfer was to take place during a dinner party to be held at Spurrier's hotel suite in Frankfort. In preparation for the dinner and with court authorization, the FBI set up video and audio surveillance equipment in different parts of Spurrier's suite. The dinner went forward as planned on February 20, 1992. Blandford was not the only general assembly member or guest to attend. Representative Jerry Bronger, among others, also was present. During the course of the dinner, Blandford accepted $500 from McBee in one of the suite's two bedrooms. 4 Once again, however, McBee did not mention breed-to-breed legislation in handing over the cash. He simply stated: "Here's a little something from MR. SPURRIER and me and the harness horse people and ... so forth." Blandford replied: 5
A second dinner in Spurrier's hotel suite would provide McBee with yet another opportunity to give FBI money to Blandford. Although, at the time, there was no breed-to-breed restriction on simulcasting and inter-track wagering in Kentucky's 1992 horse racing legislation ("horse bill"), the possibility that such a restriction would be added to the horse bill still remained. As industry participants and the FBI were well aware, the horse bill, which was drafted by the governor and submitted to the relevant house committee on March 2, 1992, could be amended to include a breed-to-breed restriction as late as March 23, 1992.
Again, the FBI obtained court approval to place surveillance equipment in selected spots in Spurrier's suite. On this occasion, the bedroom in which the February 20 dinner payments had occurred was outfitted with both audio and video surveillance devices. Prior to this dinner, which took place on March 11, 1992, Spurrier provided McBee with another $500 to give to Blandford. Spurrier specifically instructed McBee to inform Blandford that the payment was conditioned upon Blandford's opposition to breed-to-breed legislation. Notwithstanding Spurrier's instructions, McBee was only marginally less cryptic than before when it came to informing Blandford about the reason behind the payment. During McBee's and Blandford's conversation, which took place in the bugged bedroom, the following exchange took place:
Later that evening, Spurrier expressed his gratitude to Blandford:
....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. v. Clinkscale, No. 4:99 CR 0368.
...rule and can be cured by instructing the jury they must agree on a particular object in order to convict. See United States v. Blandford, 33 F.3d 685, 699 (6th Cir.1994). III. Motion to Dismiss Forfeiture Mr. Clinkscale and Mrs. Clinkscale have moved to dismiss the forfeiture action with re......
-
United States v. Donagher
...or undertaking by the official to perform or not to perform an official act." Allen , 10 F.3d at 410 ; see also United States v. Blandford , 33 F.3d 685, 696 (D.C. Cir. 2013) ("[M]erely knowing the payment was made in return for official acts is enough."). An explicit quid pro quo must "be ......
-
United States v. López-Martínez
...degree to which the payor and payee were aware of its terms, regardless of whether those terms were articulated." United States v. Blandford, 33 F.3d 685, 696 (6th Cir. 1994). Tracking this element, the First Circuit ruled that McCormick "applies only in the context of campaign contribution......
-
U.S.A. v. Buchmeier
...on only one of the offenses or both.'" United States v. Marshall, 75 F.3d 1097, 1111 (7th Cir. 1996) (quoting United States v. Blandford, 33 F.3d 685, 699 n.17 (6th Cir. 1994)). Additionally, we have explained that a duplicitous indictment may expose a defendant to other adverse effects inc......
-
Mail and wire fraud.
...invoices and recipient routinely dated stamped mail upon receipt was sufficient to prove mail had been used); United States v. Blandford, 33 F.3d 685,702 (6th Cir. 1994) (finding sufficient evidence where defendant's office routinely sent campaign finance reports to appropriate state and co......
-
Mail and wire fraud.
...invoices and recipient routinely dated stamped mail upon receipt was sufficient to prove mail had been used); United States v. Blandford, 33 F.3d 685, 702 (6th Cir. 1994) (finding sufficient evidence where defendant's office routinely sent campaign finance reports to appropriate state and c......
-
RACKETEER INFLUENCED AND CORRUPT ORGANIZATIONS
...acts can project a threat of indefinite repetition and thus meet the continuity requirement). 74. See, e.g., United States v. Blandford, 33 F.3d 685, 702–03 (6th Cir. 1994) (“The plaintiff may prove continuity by showing a series of past related predicates occurring over an extended period......
-
Racketeer influenced and corrupt organizations
...1257–58 (11th Cir. 2007); United States v. Richardson, 167 F.3d 621, 626 (D.C. Cir. 1999). 74. See, e.g. , United States v. Blandford, 33 F.3d 685, 702–03 (6th Cir. 1994) (quoting Vild v. Visconsi, 956 F.2d 560, 569 (6th Cir. 1992)). 75. See, e.g. , Craig Outdoor Advert., Inc. v. Viacom Out......