United States v. Wright
| Decision Date | 05 April 2013 |
| Docket Number | 08–450–02,08–450–04.,Criminal Action Nos. 08–450–01 |
| Citation | 936 F.Supp.2d 538 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America v. Christopher G. WRIGHT, Ravinder S. Chawla, and Andrew Teitelman. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania |
Jennifer A. Williams, Michael J. Bresnick, U.S. Attorney's Office, Philadelphia, PA, for United States of America.
Lisa A. Mathewson, The Law Offices of Lisa A. Mathewson LLC, Terri A. Pawelski, Stevens & Lee, William J. Winning, Megan Susan Scheib, Cozen and O'Connor, Philadelphia, PA, Peter Goldberger, Ardmore, PA, Ellen C. Brotman, Mark B. Sheppard, Montgomery McCracken Walker Rhoads LLP, Philadelphia, PA, for Christopher G. Wright, Ravinder S. Chawla, and Andrew Teitelman.
Christopher Wright (“Defendant Wright”) was chief of staff to former Philadelphia City Councilman At–Large John “Jack” Kelly.2 Ravinder Chawla (“Defendant Chawla”) was a principal contributor to the election campaign of Councilman Kelly. Andrew Teitelman (“Defendant Teitelman”) was a lawyer representing Defendant Chawla's businesses who actively participated in Councilman Kelly's election campaign (Defendant Wright, Defendant Chawla, and Defendant Teitelman, collectively, “Defendants”).
Defendants were charged in a fourteen-count Indictment. Following a jury trial, the jury returned the following verdict. All Defendants were convicted of Count One, which charged them with conspiracy to commit honest-services fraud. Although all three were charged in Count Three, honest-services wire fraud, which charged them with devising a scheme to exchange a thing of value for Defendant Wright's official action in connection with the Philadelphia River City Development Project (“River City Project”), Defendant Chawla alone was convicted. The scheme allegedly involved Defendants Chawla and Teitelman seeking Defendant Wright's assistance in thwarting the Philadelphia City Council's proposed building-height-restriction ordinance. The scheme also included an email from Defendant Chawla to Defendants Wright and Teitelman offering to engage Defendant Wright as “our consultant” to handle liaison work regarding the River City Project.
All Defendants were convicted of Count Ten, honest-services mail fraud, which charged them with devising a scheme to exchange Defendant Teitelman's free legal services regarding Defendant Wright's eviction for his official acts. The scheme involved a letter, which included an answer to Defendant Wright's eviction complaint that Defendant Teitelman's law-firm associate mailed to a lawyer at Premier Realty Group (“PBRG”), the real estate company pursuing Defendant Wright's eviction. Defendants Teitelman and Chawla allegedly knew about and approved of the scheme.
All Defendants were convicted of Count Twelve, traditional mail fraud, which charged them with devising a scheme to deprive PBRG of money and property by concealment. The scheme involved Defendants Chawla and Teitelman arranging to provide Defendant Wright the free use of an apartment and associated parking space. The mailing alleged in this count was the same discussed above regarding Count Ten.
Defendants Chawla and Teitelman were acquitted of Count Three; and all Defendants were acquitted of Counts Two and Four through Nine, honest-services wire fraud; as well as Count Eleven, honest-services mail fraud. Defendant Chawla was acquitted of Count Thirteen, bribery, and Defendant Wright was acquitted of Count Fourteen, also bribery.3
The Court then sentenced Defendants to terms of imprisonment as follows: Defendant Wright received forty-eight months, Defendant Chawla received thirty months, and Defendant Teitelman received twenty-four months. Defendants appealed. After sentencing and while Defendants' appeal was pending, the Supreme Court decided Skilling v. United States, 561 U.S. 358, 130 S.Ct. 2896, 177 L.Ed.2d 619 (2010), wherein the Court significantly reduced the scope of the honest-services-fraud statute codified at 18 U.S.C. § 1346. Specifically, the Skilling Court held that the statute only covered bribery and kickback schemes. Id. at 2927–35. The Court found that honest-services-fraud theories based on a public servant's failure to disclose a conflict of interest resulting in personal gain were impermissible, because they rendered the statute unconstitutionally vague. Id.
Applying Skilling to this case, the Third Circuit first found that the evidence was sufficient to sustain all of Defendants' convictions. United States v. Wright, 665 F.3d 560, 570, 575 (3d Cir.2012). However, the Third Circuit interpreted Skilling to render the Court's honest-services-fraud jury instruction, which instructed the jury that liability may lie under either a “conflict-of-interest” theory or “bribery” theory, incorrect. Id. at 570–72. Furthermore, because the evidence of honest-services fraud overlapped with the evidence submitted on the traditional fraud counts, the Third Circuit found that “prejudicial spillover” tainted the traditional fraud convictions. Id. at 577. Therefore, the Third Circuit vacated the four counts of conviction and remanded the case for a new trial. Id. at 577–78. Defendants petitioned for panel rehearing, which the Third Circuit denied. See United States v. Wright, No. 09–3467 (3d Cir. Mar. 2, 2012) ().
In preparation for retrial and with the view of narrowing the proofs that the Government may offer at that time, Defendants filed the instant Motion to Limit the Scope of Retrial (ECF No. 360). The Government responded (ECF No. 361), and, shortly thereafter, Defendants filed a reply memorandum (ECF No. 363). On January 18, 2013, the Court held a hearing to consider the parties' arguments. The matter is now ripe for disposition.
Defendants raise three arguments in their joint motion. First, Defendants contend that the Government cannot retry them on a bribery theory of honest-services fraud because doing so would constructively amend the Indictment. 4 Second, Defendants contend that the Government should be precluded from arguing that any potential real estate commissions were “things of value” offered to Defendant Wright by his co-defendants, because such an argument would also constructively amend the Indictment. And third, Defendants contend that the Double Jeopardy Clause, specifically collateral estoppel, prohibits the Government from relitigating nine issues that the jury necessarily decided in the first trial.
For the reasons stated below, the Court will reject the constructive amendment claims, prohibit relitigation of the $1000 check as an overt act, and permit relitigation of the remaining issues.
A defendant may not be convicted of an offense different from that charged in the indictment. “An indictment is constructively amended when evidence, arguments, or the district court's jury instructions effectively ‘amend the indictment by broadening the possible bases for conviction from that which appeared in the indictment.’ ” United States v. McKee, 506 F.3d 225, 229 (3d Cir.2007) (quoting United States v. Lee, 359 F.3d 194, 208 (3d Cir.2004)); see also United States v. Daraio, 445 F.3d 253, 259 (3d Cir.2006) (). A constructive amendment violates the Fifth Amendment's guarantee of indictment by grand jury. McKee, 506...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Wright
...as to evidence of a $1000 check paid to Wright by Hardeep Chawla (the only defendant acquitted of all charges). United States v. Wright, 936 F.Supp.2d 538 (E.D.Pa.2013).1 Appellants timely appealed.II. Although our jurisdiction over substantial aspects of this appeal is not contested, we ha......
-
United States v. Wright
...as to evidence of a $1000 check paid to Wright by Hardeep Chawla (the only defendant acquitted of all charges). United States v. Wright, 936 F.Supp.2d 538 (E.D.Pa.2013).1 Appellants timely appealed.II. Although our jurisdiction over substantial aspects of this appeal is not contested, we ha......
-
United States v. Wright
...to evidence of a $1000 check paid to Wright by Hardeep Chawla (the only defendant acquitted of all charges). United States v. Wright, 936 F.Supp.2d 538 (E.D.Pa.2013).1 Appellants timely Although our jurisdiction over substantial aspects of this appeal is not contested, we have an independen......
-
Hoffman v. Breckon
...if he is convicted of the same offense that was charged in the indictment, there is no constructive amendment.United States v. Wright, 936 F. Supp. 2d 538, 544 (E.D. Pa. 2013); see also United States v. Daraio, 445 F.3d 253, 259-60 (3d Cir. 2006) ("The key inquiry is whether the defendant w......