U.S. v. Goodrich, No. 88-3491
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (11th Circuit) |
| Writing for the Court | Before RONEY, Chief Judge, HILL, Circuit Judge, and TUTTLE; HILL |
| Citation | 871 F.2d 1011 |
| Decision Date | 27 April 1989 |
| Docket Number | No. 88-3491 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Laurence I. GOODRICH, Defendant-Appellee. |
Page 1011
v.
Laurence I. GOODRICH, Defendant-Appellee.
Eleventh Circuit.
Page 1012
Joseph D. Magri, U.S. Atty., Fran Carpini, Terry Zitek, Asst. U.S. Attys., Tampa, Fla. for plaintiff-appellant.
Lee Fugate, Clearwater, Fla., for defendant-appellee.
Laurence I. Goodrich, Tampa, Fla., pro se.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida.
Before RONEY, Chief Judge, HILL, Circuit Judge, and TUTTLE, Senior Circuit Judge.
HILL, Circuit Judge:
I. FACTS
On September 17, 1986, appellee Laurence Goodrich was indicted for his participation in a bribery scheme involving the Hillsborough County Board of County Commissioners ("Board"). He was indicted for racketeering and mail fraud. The stated object of the mail fraud scheme was to defraud the citizens of Hillsborough County of their right to the honest, faithful and disinterested services of the County Commissioners and of their right to have the business affairs of the Board conducted honestly, impartially, and free from deceit, corruption and fraud.
After the indictment was returned, the Supreme Court issued its decision in McNally v. United States, 483 U.S. 350, 107 S.Ct. 2875, 97 L.Ed.2d 292 (1987), in which the Court held that a scheme to defraud the citizens of their intangible right to honest government does not constitute mail fraud. Under McNally, a scheme to defraud runs afoul of the mail fraud statute only if it is devised to defraud the victim of money or property. On the basis of McNally, Goodrich moved to dismiss the mail fraud count.
On August 20, 1987, before any ruling had been made on Goodrich's motion to dismiss the mail fraud count, a superceding indictment was returned against Goodrich in which he was again charged with racketeering and mail fraud. With respect to the mail fraud claim, the superceding indictment alleged that Goodrich had, by participating in the same bribery scheme, defrauded the citizens of Hillsborough County of three types of money and property:
(1) the salaries, emoluments, and services of elected and appointed personnel of Hillsborough County, Florida, and the use of equipment of Hillsborough County, Florida, in the analysis, review, revision of planning and zoning records and consideration by the Board of County Commissioners and various departments and offices of Hillsborough County in regard to zoning petitions which were approved by the Board of County Commissioners
Page 1013
because of payments of bribes in violation of Florida statutes; 1(2) the value and proceeds of bribes paid to elected members of the Board of County Commissioners of Hillsborough County, Florida, to induce them to violate their duty to the government and citizens of Hillsborough County, Florida, of conducting the business of Hillsborough County, Florida, honestly, impartially, and free from deceit, graft, corruption, fraud, undue influence, dishonesty, and bribery, and;
(3) control over the decision making process in regard to conferring the property right of regulating the density of residential property through amending the zoning of individual parcels of property thereby increasing the amount of residential units permitted on the parcel of property.
Specifically, the indictment alleged that between September 1982 and November 1982, Goodrich, a Florida attorney, devised a scheme in which he bribed three Hillsborough County Commissioners with the intent to influence them relating to a rezoning of real property.
The district court dismissed the mail fraud count of the superceding indictment. 687 F.Supp. 567. The district court addressed each of the three types of property listed in the mail fraud count and found that the government had presented no basis for distinguishing this case from McNally. The types of property listed in the indictment constituted, in essence, the same intangible right to honest government which McNally holds cannot be the basis of a mail fraud indictment. The United States filed a notice of appeal.
II. DISCUSSION
This case is governed by McNally v. United States, 483 U.S. 350, 107 S.Ct. 2875, 97 L.Ed.2d 292 (1987). As stated, McNally holds that the mail fraud statute does not apply to the intangible right of the citizenry to good government. We must decide whether the superceding indictment alleges a scheme to defraud a victim of money and property or, as the district court held, merely alleges, albeit in new language, a scheme to defraud the County and its citizens of their right to good government.
A.
The first property interest allegedly defrauded by Goodrich is the "salaries, emoluments and services of elected and appointed personnel of Hillsborough County...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Westchester Cnty. Independence Party v. Astorino, 13–CV–7737(KMK).
...case, the citizens have simply lost the intangible right to elect the official who will receive the salary."); United States v. Goodrich, 871 F.2d 1011, 1013–14 (11th Cir.1989) ("[T]he property interest alleged to have been denied the victim here—what the government contends Hillsborough Co......
-
United States v. Coppola, Docket No. 10–0065–cr.
...honest services, a claim that cannot be maintained under either the Hobbs Act or § 1346 after Skilling. Cf. United States v. Goodrich, 871 F.2d 1011, 1013–14 (11th Cir.1989) (concluding, in fraud context, that similar theory could be maintained only as fraudulent deprivation of intangible r......
-
Westchester Cnty. Independence Party v. Astorino, Case No. 13-CV-7737 (KMK)
...case, the citizens have simply lost the intangible right to elect the official who will receive the salary."); United States v. Goodrich, 871 F.2d 1011, 1013-14 (11th Cir. 1989) ("[T]he property interest alleged to have been denied the victim here—what the government contends Hillsborough C......
-
US v. Johns, Crim. No. 87-00376.
...basis for a post-McNally mail fraud conviction, but I decline to adopt that court's holding and analysis. In United States v. Goodrich, 871 F.2d 1011 (11th Cir.1989), the defendant, a Florida attorney, was accused of devising a scheme to bribe three county commissioners of Hillsborough, Flo......
-
US v. Johns, Crim. No. 87-00376.
...basis for a post-McNally mail fraud conviction, but I decline to adopt that court's holding and analysis. In United States v. Goodrich, 871 F.2d 1011 (11th Cir.1989), the defendant, a Florida attorney, was accused of devising a scheme to bribe three county commissioners of Hillsborough, Flo......
-
U.S. v. Young, No. CR 07-1012 BB.
...of the majority. African Trade & Information Ctr., Inc. v. Abromaitis, 294 F.3d 355, 362 (2d Cir.2002); United States v. Goodrich, 871 F.2d 1011, 1013 (11th Even if Justice Scalia's dissent in Morrison could be considered "constitutionally clairvoyant," however, "Cassandr......
-
U.S. v. Turner, No. 05-6326.
...involving money or property. Turner's primary argument parallels the reasoning of the Eleventh Circuit in United States v. Goodrich, 871 F.2d 1011 (11th Cir.1989). In that case, an indictment issued before McNally charged the defendant with defrauding the citizens of their right to the hone......
-
U.S. v. Turner, No. 05-6326.
...involving money or property. Turner's primary argument parallels the reasoning of the Eleventh Circuit in United States v. Goodrich, 871 F.2d 1011 (11th Cir.1989). In that case, an indictment issued before McNally charged the defendant with defrauding the citizens of their right to the hone......