mcdonnell fourth circuit opinion

Upload: wjla-tv

Post on 07-Aug-2018

226 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

  • 8/20/2019 McDonnell Fourth Circuit Opinion

    1/89

     

    PUBLISHED 

    UNI TED STATES COURT OF APPEALSFOR THE FOURTH CI RCUI T

     No. 15-4019 

    UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA,

    Pl ai nt i f f – Appel l ee,

    v.

    ROBERT F. MCDONNELL,

    Def endant – Appel l ant .

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

    FORMER VI RGI NI A ATTORNEYS GENERAL; ANDREW P. MI LLER; ANTHONYFRANCI S TROY; J . MARSHALL COLEMAN; MARY SUE TERRY; STEPHENDOUGLAS ROSENTHAL; MARK L. EARLEY; NATI ONAL ASSOCI ATI ON OFCRI MI NAL DEFENSE LAWYERS; NANCY GERTNER, Law Pr of essor ;CHARLES J . OGLETREE, J R. , Law Prof essor ; J OHN C. J EFFRI ES, J R. , Law Pr of essor ; BENJ AMI N TODD J EALOUS; REPUBLI CANGOVERNORS PUBLI C POLI CY COMMI TTEE; FORMER STATE ATTORNEYS

    GENERAL ( NON- VI RGI NI A) ; BUSI NESS LEADERS AND PUBLI C POLI CYADVOCATES; VI RGI NI A LAW PROFESSORS; FORMER FEDERALOFFI CI ALS; MEMBERS AND FORMER MEMBERS OF THE VI RGI NI AGENERAL ASSEMBLY,

    Ami ci Suppor t i ng Appel l ant .

    Appeal f r om t he Uni t ed St at es Di st r i ct Cour t f or t he East er nDi st r i ct of Vi r gi ni a, at Ri chmond. J ames R. Spencer , Seni or

    Di st r i ct J udge. ( 3: 14- cr- 00012- J RS- 1)

    Ar gued: May 12, 2015 Deci ded: J ul y 10, 2015

    Bef ore MOTZ, KI NG, and THACKER, Ci r cui t J udges.

    Appeal: 15-4019 Doc: 126 Filed: 07/10/2015 Pg: 1 of 89

  • 8/20/2019 McDonnell Fourth Circuit Opinion

    2/89

    2

    Af f i r med by publ i shed opi ni on. J udge Thacker wr ot e t he opi ni on,i n whi ch J udge Motz and J udge Ki ng j oi ned.

     ARGUED: Noel J . Franci sco, J ONES DAY, Washi ngt on, D. C. , f orAppel l ant . Ri char d Dani el Cooke, OFFI CE OF THE UNI TED STATESATTORNEY, Ri chmond, Vi r gi ni a, f or Appel l ee. ON BRIEF: J ohn L.Br ownl ee, Dani el I . Smal l , Chr i st opher M. I aqui nt o, El i zabet h N. J ochum, HOLLAND & KNI GHT LLP, Washi ngt on, D. C. ; Henry W. Asbi l l ,Char l ot t e H. Tayl or , J ames M. Bur nham, I an Samuel , J ONES DAY,Washi ngt on, D. C. , f or Appel l ant . Dana J . Boent e, Uni t ed St at esAt t or ney, Ryan S. Faul coner , Assi st ant Uni t ed St at es At t or ney,Raymond Hul ser , Act i ng Chi ef , Publ i c I nt egr i t y Sect i on,Al exandr i a, Vi r gi ni a, Mi chael S. Dr y, Assi st ant Uni t ed St at esAt t or ney, J essi ca D. Aber , Assi st ant Uni t ed St at es At t or ney,Davi d V. Harbach, I I , Cr i mi nal Di vi si on, OFFI CE OF THE UNI TEDSTATES ATTORNEY, Ri chmond, Vi r gi ni a, f or Appel l ee. Wi l l i am H.

    Hurd, St ephen C. Pi epgr ass, TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP, Ri chmond,Vi r gi ni a, f or Ami ci For mer Vi r gi ni a At t or neys Gener al Andr ew P.Mi l l er , Ant hony Fr anci s Tr oy, J . Mar shal l Col eman, Mar y Sue Ter r y, St ephen Dougl as Rosent hal , and Mar k L. Ear l ey. Davi d B.Smi t h, SMI TH & ZI MMERMAN, PLLC, Al exandr i a, Vi r gi ni a; J ohn D.Cl i ne, LAW OFFI CE OF J OHN D. CLI NE, San Franci sco, Cal i f or ni a,f or Ami cus Nat i onal Associ at i on of Cr i mi nal Def ense Lawyer s.Wi l l i am W. Tayl or , I I I , ZUCKERMAN SPAEDER LLP, Washi ngt on, D. C. ,f or Ami ci Nancy Ger t ner , Law Pr of essor , Char l es J . Ogl et r ee, J r . , Law Pr of essor , and J ohn C. J ef f r i es, J r . , Law Pr of essor .Wyat t B. Dur r et t e, J r . , Bar r et t E. Pope, Rober t Rae Gor don,

    DURRETTECRUMP PLC, Ri chmond, Vi r gi ni a, f or Ami cus Benj ami n Todd J eal ous. Char l es J . Cooper , Davi d H. Thompson, Pet er A.Pat t erson, J ohn D. Ohl endor f , COOPER & KI RK, PLLC, Washi ngt on,D. C. , f or Ami cus Republ i can Gover nor s Publ i c Pol i cy Commi t t ee,a/ k/ a RGPPC. Br i an D. Boone, Emi l y C. McGowan, Char l ot t e, Nort hCarol i na, Edward T. Kang, ALSTON & BI RD LLP, Washi ngt on, D. C. ,f or Ami ci For mer St at e At t or neys Gener al ( Non- Vi r gi ni a) .Gr egor y N. St i l l man, Nor f ol k, Vi r gi ni a, Edwar d J . Fuhr , J ohnat han E. Schr once, Ri chmond, Vi r gi ni a, Wi l l i am J . Haun,HUNTON & WI LLI AMS LLP, Washi ngt on, D. C. , f or Ami ci Busi nessLeader s and Publ i c Pol i cy Advocat es. Ti mot hy M. Ri char dson,

    POOLE MAHONEY PC, Vi r gi ni a Beach, Vi r gi ni a, f or Ami ci Vi r gi ni aLaw Pr of essor s. Wi l l i am J . Ki l ber g, Thomas G. Hungar , Hel gi C.Wal ker , Davi d Debol d, Kather i ne C. Yar ger , J acob T. Spencer ,GI BSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP, Washi ngt on, D. C. , f or Ami ci For merFeder al Of f i ci al s. J ohn S. Davi s, J oseph R. Pope, J onat han T.Luci er , WI LLI AMS MULLEN, Ri chmond, Vi r gi ni a, f or Ami ci Membersand For mer Member s of t he Vi r gi ni a General Assembl y.

    Appeal: 15-4019 Doc: 126 Filed: 07/10/2015 Pg: 2 of 89

  • 8/20/2019 McDonnell Fourth Circuit Opinion

    3/89

    3

     THACKER, Ci r cui t J udge:

    Over t he cour se of f i ve weeks of t r i al , f eder al

    pr osecut or s sought t o pr ove t hat f or mer Gover nor of Vi r gi ni a

    Rober t F. McDonnel l ( “Appel l ant ”) and hi s wi f e, Maur een

    McDonnel l , accept ed money and l avi sh gi f t s i n exchange f or

    ef f or t s t o assi st a Vi r gi ni a company i n secur i ng st at e

    uni ver si t y t est i ng of a di et ary suppl ement t he company had

    devel oped. The j ur y f ound Appel l ant gui l t y of el even count s of

    cor r upt i on and not gui l t y of t wo count s of maki ng a f al se

    st at ement . 1 

    Appel l ant appeal s hi s convi ct i ons, al l egi ng a

    mul t i t ude of er r or s. Chi ef l y, Appel l ant chal l enges t he j ur y

    i nst r ucti ons - - cl ai mi ng t he di st r i ct cour t mi sstated t he l aw - -

    and t he suf f i ci ency of t he evi dence pr esent ed agai nst hi m. He

    al so ar gues t hat hi s t r i al shoul d have been sever ed f r om hi s

    wi f e’ s tr i al ; t hat t he di str i ct cour t ’ s voi r di r e quest i oni ng

    vi ol at ed hi s Si xt h Amendment r i ght s; and t hat t he di st r i ct cour t

    made sever al er r oneous evi dent i ar y r ul i ngs. Upon consi der at i on

    of each of Appel l ant ’ s cont ent i ons, we concl ude t hat t he j ur y’ s

    1  The j ur y al so f ound Mr s. McDonnel l gui l t y of ei ght count sof cor r upt i on and one count of obst r uct i on of an of f i ci alpr oceedi ng. The j ur y f ound her not gui l t y of t hr ee count s ofcorr upt i on and one count of maki ng a f al se st atement . Herappeal i s not at i ssue her e, as i t i s pur sued separ at el y.

    Appeal: 15-4019 Doc: 126 Filed: 07/10/2015 Pg: 3 of 89

  • 8/20/2019 McDonnell Fourth Circuit Opinion

    4/89

    4

    ver di ct must st and and t hat t he di st r i ct cour t ’ s j udgment shoul d

    be af f i r med.

    I .

    A.

    On November 3, 2009, Appel l ant was el ect ed t he

    sevent y- f i r st Gover nor of Vi r gi ni a. From t he out set , he made

    economi c devel opment and t he pr omot i on of Vi r gi ni a busi nesses

    pr i or i t i es of hi s admi ni st r at i on.

     The economi c downt urn precedi ng t he el ect i on had t aken

    a per sonal t ol l on Appel l ant . Mobo Real Est at e Par t ner s LLC

    ( “Mobo”) , a busi ness oper at ed by Appel l ant and hi s si st er , was

    l osi ng money on a pai r of beachf r ont r ent al pr oper t i es i n

    Vi r gi ni a Beach. When Appel l ant became Governor , he and hi s

    si st er were l osi ng more t han $40, 000 each year . By 2011, t hey

    owed mor e t han $11, 000 per mont h i n l oan payment s. Each year

    t hei r l oan bal ance i ncr eased, and by 2012, t he out st andi ng

    bal ance was near i ng $2. 5 mi l l i on.

    Appel l ant was al so pi l i ng up cr edi t car d debt . I n

     J anuar y 2010, t he mont h of hi s i naugur at i on, Appel l ant and hi s

    wi f e had a combi ned cr edi t car d bal ance exceedi ng $74, 000.

    Ei ght mont hs l at er , i n Sept ember 2010, t he combi ned bal ance

    exceeded $90, 000.

    Appeal: 15-4019 Doc: 126 Filed: 07/10/2015 Pg: 4 of 89

  • 8/20/2019 McDonnell Fourth Circuit Opinion

    5/89

    5

    B.

    Whi l e Appel l ant was campai gni ng on pr omi ses of

    economi c devel opment i n Vi r gi ni a, Vi r gi ni a- based St ar Sci ent i f i c

    I nc. ( “St ar ”) and i t s f ounder and chi ef execut i ve of f i cer J onni e

    Wi l l i ams wer e cl ose t o l aunchi ng a new pr oduct : Anat abl oc. For

    year s, St ar had been eval uat i ng t he cur at i ve pot ent i al of

    anat abi ne, an al kal oi d f ound i n t he t obacco pl ant , f ocusi ng on

    whet her i t coul d be used t o t r eat chr oni c i nf l ammat i on.

    Anat abl oc was one of t he anat abi ne- based di etary suppl ement s

    St ar devel oped as a r esul t of t hese year s of eval uat i on.

    St ar want ed t he Food and Dr ug Admi ni st r at i on t o

    cl assi f y Anat abl oc as a phar maceut i cal . Ot her wi se, i t woul d

    have t o market Anatabl oc as a nut r aceut i cal , whi ch gener al l y has

    l ess pr of i t pot ent i al t han a phar maceut i cal . Cl assi f i cat i on as

    a phar maceut i cal woul d r equi r e expensi ve t est i ng, cl i ni cal

    t r i al s, and st udi es. But St ar di d not have t he f i nanci al

    wher ewi t hal t o conduct t he necessary t est i ng, t r i al s, and

    st udi es on i t s own. I t needed out si de r esear ch and f undi ng.

    C.

    Appel l ant and Wi l l i ams f i r st met i n December 2009 - -

    shor t l y af t er Appel l ant ’ s el ect i on t o t he gover nor shi p but

    bef or e hi s i naugur at i on. Appel l ant had used Wi l l i ams’ s pl ane

    dur i ng hi s campai gn, and he want ed t o t hank Wi l l i ams over di nner

    Appeal: 15-4019 Doc: 126 Filed: 07/10/2015 Pg: 5 of 89

  • 8/20/2019 McDonnell Fourth Circuit Opinion

    6/89

    6

    i n New York. 2  Dur i ng di nner , Wi l l i ams or der ed a $5, 000 bot t l e of

    cognac and t he conver sat i on t ur ned t o the gown Appel l ant ’ s wi f e

    woul d wear t o Appel l ant ’ s i naugur at i on. Wi l l i ams ment i oned t hat

    he knew Oscar de l a Rent a and of f ered t o purchase Mr s. McDonnel l

    an expensi ve cust om dr ess. 3 

    I n Oct ober 2010, Appel l ant and Wi l l i ams cr ossed paths

    agai n. Thi s t i me, t he t wo wer e on t he same pl ane - - Wi l l i ams’ s

    pl ane - - maki ng t hei r way f r om Cal i f or ni a t o Vi r gi ni a. Dur i ng

    t he si x- hour f l i ght , Wi l l i ams ext ol l ed t he vi r t ues of Anat abl oc

    and expl ai ned t hat he needed Appel l ant ’ s hel p t o move f orward

    wi t h t he pr oduct :

    [ W] hat I di d was I expl ai ned t o hi m how Idi scover ed i t . I gave hi m a basi c educat i onon t he - - on smoki ng, t he di seases t hatdon’ t happen wi t h smoker s and j ust t r i ed t omake sure he under st ood, you know, what Ihad di scover ed i n t hi s t obacco pl ant and

    t hat I was goi ng t o - - what I needed f r om

     2  Wi l l i ams was one of sever al i ndi vi dual s who of f er ed t he

    use of a pr i vat e pl ane t o Appel l ant dur i ng hi s campai gn on anas- needed basi s. Al t hough Appel l ant had used Wi l l i ams’ s pl anedur i ng hi s campai gn, t he t wo men di d not meet unt i l December2009.

    3  I n t he end, Wi l l i ams di d not pur chase an i naugur at i on

    dr ess f or Mr s. McDonnel l . Accor di ng t o Wi l l i ams, Appel l ant ’ schi ef counsel , J acob J asen Ei ge, cal l ed Wi l l i ams, sayi ng, “Iunder st and t hat you’ r e get t i ng r eady to pur chase [Mr s. ]McDonnel l a dr ess f or t he i naugur at i on. I ’ m cal l i ng t o l et youknow t hat you can’ t do t hat . ” J . A. 2208 ( i nt er nal quot at i onmar ks omi t t ed) . Ci t at i ons t o t he “J . A. ” r ef er t o t he J oi ntAppendi x f i l ed by t he par t i es i n t hi s appeal .

    Appeal: 15-4019 Doc: 126 Filed: 07/10/2015 Pg: 6 of 89

  • 8/20/2019 McDonnell Fourth Circuit Opinion

    7/89

    7

    hi m was t hat I needed t est i ng and I want edt o have t hi s done i n Vi r gi ni a.

     J . A. 2211.

    By t he end of t he f l i ght , t he t wo agr eed t hat

    “i ndependent t est i ng i n Vi r gi ni a was a good i dea. ” J . A. 2211.

    Appel l ant agr eed t o i nt r oduce Wi l l i ams t o Dr . Wi l l i am A. Hazel

     J r . , t he Commonweal t h’ s secr et ar y of heal t h and human r esour ces.

    I n Apr i l 2011, Mr s. McDonnel l i nvi t ed Wi l l i ams t o j oi n

    t he f i r st coupl e at a pol i t i cal r al l y i n New Yor k. “ I ’ l l have

    you seat ed wi t h t he Gover nor and we can go shoppi ng now, ” Mr s.

    McDonnel l sai d, accor di ng t o Wi l l i ams. J . A. 2222 ( i nt er nal

    quotat i on marks omi t t ed) . So Wi l l i ams t ook Mr s. McDonnel l on a

    shoppi ng spree; t hey l unched and shopped at Bergdor f Goodman and

    vi si t ed Oscar de l a Rent a and Loui s Vui t t on st or es on Fi f t h

    Avenue. Wi l l i ams bought Mr s. McDonnel l dr esses and a whi t e

    l eat her coat f r om Oscar de l a Rent a; shoes, a pur se, and a

    r ai ncoat f r om Loui s Vui t t on; and a dr ess f r om Ber gdor f Goodman.

    Wi l l i ams spent appr oxi mat el y $20, 000 on Mr s. McDonnel l dur i ng

    t hi s shoppi ng spr ee. That eveni ng, Wi l l i ams sat wi t h Appel l ant

    and Mr s. McDonnel l dur i ng a pol i t i cal r al l y.

    A f ew weeks l at er , on Apr i l 29, Wi l l i ams j oi ned

    Appel l ant and Mr s. McDonnel l f or a pr i vat e di nner at t he

    Gover nor ’ s Mansi on. The di scussi on at di nner cent er ed on

    Anatabl oc and t he need f or i ndependent t est i ng and st udi es.

    Appeal: 15-4019 Doc: 126 Filed: 07/10/2015 Pg: 7 of 89

  • 8/20/2019 McDonnell Fourth Circuit Opinion

    8/89

    8

    Appel l ant , who had campai gned on pr omot i ng busi ness i n Vi r gi ni a,

    was “i nt r i gued t hat [ St ar ] was a Vi r gi ni a company wi t h an i dea, ”

    and he want ed t o have Anat abl oc st udi es conduct ed wi t hi n the

    Commonweal t h’ s borders. J . A. 6561.

     Two days af t er t hi s pr i vat e di nner - - on May 1,

    2011 - - Mr s. McDonnel l r ecei ved an emai l vi a Wi l l i ams. 4  The

    emai l i ncl uded a l i nk t o an ar t i cl e ent i t l ed “St ar Sci ent i f i c

    Has Home Run Pot ent i al , ” whi ch di scussed St ar ’ s r esear ch and

    st ock. Mr s. McDonnel l f or war ded t hi s emai l t o Appel l ant at

    12: 17 p. m. Less t han an hour l at er , Appel l ant t exted hi s

    si st er , aski ng f or i nf or mat i on about l oans and bank opt i ons f or

    t hei r Mobo pr oper t i es. Lat er t hat eveni ng, Appel l ant emai l ed

    hi s daught er Cai l i n, aski ng her t o send hi m i nf or mat i on about

    t he payment s he st i l l owed f or her weddi ng.

     The next day, May 2, Mr s. McDonnel l and Wi l l i ams met

    at t he Gover nor ’ s Mansi on t o di scuss Anat abl oc. However , Mr s.

    McDonnel l began expl ai ni ng her f ami l y’ s f i nanci al woes - -

    t hought s about f i l i ng f or bankr upt cy, hi gh- i nt er est l oans, t he

    decl i ne i n t he r eal est at e mar ket , and cr edi t car d debt . Then,

    accor di ng t o Wi l l i ams, Mr s. McDonnel l sai d, “I have a backgr ound

    4  Wi l l i ams di d not send the emai l t o Mr s. McDonnel l .However , t he sender wr ote, “Pl ease gi ve t o t he gover nor and hi swi f e as per J onni e Wi l l i ams. ” G. S. A. 3. Ci t at i ons t o t he“G. S. A. ” r ef er t o t he Suppl ement al Appendi x f i l ed by t heGovernment .

    Appeal: 15-4019 Doc: 126 Filed: 07/10/2015 Pg: 8 of 89

  • 8/20/2019 McDonnell Fourth Circuit Opinion

    9/89

    9

    i n nut r i t i onal suppl ement s and I can be hel pf ul t o you wi t h t hi s

    pr oj ect , wi t h your company. The Gover nor says i t ’ s okay f or me

    t o hel p you and - - but I need you t o hel p me. I need you t o

    hel p me wi t h t hi s f i nanci al si t uat i on. ” J . A. 2231 ( i nt er nal

    quotat i on marks omi t t ed) . Mr s. McDonnel l asked t o borr ow

    $50, 000. Wi l l i ams agr eed t o l oan t he money t o t he McDonnel l s.

    Mr s. McDonnel l al so ment i oned t hat she and her husband owed

    $15, 000 f or t hei r daught er ’ s weddi ng r ecept i on. Agai n, Wi l l i ams

    agr eed t o pr ovi de t he money. Bef ore cut t i ng t he checks,

    Wi l l i ams cal l ed Appel l ant t o “make sur e [ he] knew about i t . ”

     J . A. 2233. “I cal l ed hi m and sai d t hat , you know, ‘ I met wi t h

    Maur een. I under st and t he f i nanci al pr obl ems and I ’ m wi l l i ng t o

    hel p. I j ust want ed t o make sur e t hat you knew about t hi s, ’ ”

    Wi l l i ams r ecount ed at t r i al . I d. Appel l ant ’ s r esponse was

    “Thank you. ” I d.

     Three days l at er , on May 5 at 11 a. m. , Appel l ant met

    wi t h Secr et ar y Hazel and Chi ef of St af f Mar t i n Kent t o di scuss

    t he st r at egi c pl an f or t he st at e’ s heal t h and human r esour ces

    of f i ce. Shor t l y af t er the meet i ng, Appel l ant di r ect ed hi s

    assi st ant t o f or war d t o Hazel t he ar t i cl e about St ar t hat Mr s.

    McDonnel l had ear l i er br ought t o Appel l ant ’ s at t ent i on.

    Wi l l i ams r et ur ned t o t he Governor ’ s Mansi on on May 23,

    2011, t o del i ver t wo checks f or t he amount s di scussed on May 2:

    a $50, 000 check made out t o Mr s. McDonnel l and a $15, 000 check

    Appeal: 15-4019 Doc: 126 Filed: 07/10/2015 Pg: 9 of 89

  • 8/20/2019 McDonnell Fourth Circuit Opinion

    10/89

    10

    t hat was not made out t o anyone but was goi ng t o t he weddi ng

    cat er er s. Af t er Wi l l i ams del i ver ed t hese checks t o Mr s.

    McDonnel l , Appel l ant expr essed hi s grat i t ude i n a May 28 emai l

    t o Wi l l i ams:

     J ohnni e. Thanks so much f or al l l your hel pwi t h my f ami l y. Your ver y gener ous gi f t t oCai l i n was most appr eci ated as wel l as t hegol f r ound t omor r ow f or t he boys. Maur eeni s exci t ed about t he t r i p t o f l a t o l ear nmore about t he pr oduct s . . . . Have ar est f ul weekend wi t h your f ami l y. Thanks. 5 

    G. S. A. 20. The next day, as ment i oned i n t he emai l , Appel l ant ,

    hi s t wo sons, and hi s soon- t o- be son- i n- l aw spent t he day at

    Ki nl och Gol f Cl ub i n Manaki n- Sabot , Vi r gi ni a. Dur i ng t hi s

    out i ng, t hey spent mor e t han seven hour s pl ayi ng gol f , eat i ng,

    and shoppi ng. Wi l l i ams, who was not pr esent , cover ed t he

    $2, 380. 24 bi l l .

    Al so as ment i oned i n t he emai l , Mr s. McDonnel l

    t r avel ed t o Fl or i da at t he st ar t of J une t o at t end a St ar -

    sponsor ed event at t he Roskamp I nst i t ut e. 6  Whi l e t her e, she

    addr essed t he audi ence, expr essi ng her suppor t f or St ar and i t s

    r esear ch. She al so i nvi t ed t he audi ence t o t he l aunch f or

    Anat abl oc, whi ch woul d be hel d at t he Governor ’ s Mansi on. The

    5  Text messages and emai l s ar e quoted ver bat i m wi t houti dent i f yi ng any mi st akes i n t he or i gi nal . Al t er at i ons have beenmade onl y when necessary f or cl ar i f i cat i on.

    6  The Roskamp I nst i t ut e i s a pr i vat e r esear ch i nst i t ut e t hatst udi es Al zhei mer ’ s di sease.

    Appeal: 15-4019 Doc: 126 Filed: 07/10/2015 Pg: 10 of 89

  • 8/20/2019 McDonnell Fourth Circuit Opinion

    11/89

    11

    same day - - J une 1, 2011 - - she pur chased 6, 000 shar es of St ar

    st ock at $5. 1799 per shar e, f or a t ot al of $31, 079. 40.

    Weeks l at er , Wi l l i ams sent Appel l ant a l et t er about

    conduct i ng Anat abl oc st udi es i n Vi r gi ni a. Wi l l i ams wr ot e, “I am

    suggest i ng t hat you use t he at t ached pr ot ocol t o i ni t i at e t he

    ‘ Vi r gi ni a st udy’ of Anat abl oc at t he Medi cal Col l ege of Vi r gi ni a

    and t he Uni ver si t y of Vi r gi ni a School of Medi ci ne, wi t h an

    emphasi s on endocr i nol ogy, car di ol ogy, ost eoar t hr i t i s and

    gast r oent er ol ogy. ” G. S. A. 29. Appel l ant f or war ded t he l et t er

    and i t s at t achment s t o Secr et ar y Hazel f or r evi ew.

    Appel l ant ’ s pol i t i cal act i on commi t t ee - - Oppor t uni t y

    Vi r gi ni a ( t he “PAC”) - - host ed and f unded a r et r eat at t he Omni

    Homest ead Resor t i n Hot Spr i ngs, Vi r gi ni a. The r et r eat began on

     J une 23, 2011, and was at t ended by t he t op donor s t o Oppor t uni t y

    Vi r gi ni a. Wi l l i ams, “a $100, 000 i n- ki nd cont r i but or t o t he

    campai gn and the PAC, ” was i nvi t ed, and he f l ew Appel l ant ’ s

    chi l dr en t o t he r esor t f or t he r et r eat . J . A. 6117. Appel l ant

    and Wi l l i ams pl ayed gol f t oget her dur i ng t he r et r eat . A f ew

    days l at er , Wi l l i ams sent gol f bags wi t h br and new cl ubs and

    gol f shoes t o Appel l ant and one of hi s sons.

    Fr om J ul y 28 t o J ul y 31, Appel l ant and hi s f ami l y

    vacat i oned at Wi l l i ams’ s mul t i - mi l l i on- dol l ar home at Smi t h

    Mount ai n Lake i n Vi r gi ni a. Wi l l i ams al l owed t he McDonnel l s t o

    st ay t her e f r ee of char ge. He al so pai d $2, 268 f or t he

    Appeal: 15-4019 Doc: 126 Filed: 07/10/2015 Pg: 11 of 89

  • 8/20/2019 McDonnell Fourth Circuit Opinion

    12/89

    12

    McDonnel l s t o r ent a boat . And Wi l l i ams pr ovi ded t r anspor t at i on

    f or t he f ami l y: Appel l ant ’ s chi l dr en used Wi l l i ams’ s Range Rover

    f or t he t r i p t o t he home, and he pai d more than $600 t o have hi s

    Fer r ar i del i ver ed t o t he home f or Appel l ant t o use.

    Appel l ant dr ove t he Fer r ar i back t o Ri chmond at t he

    end of t he vacat i on on J ul y 31. Dur i ng t he t hr ee- hour dr i ve,

    Mr s. McDonnel l snapped sever al pi ct ur es of Appel l ant dr i vi ng

    wi t h t he Fer r ar i ’ s t op down. Mr s. McDonnel l emai l ed one of t he

    phot ogr aphs t o Wi l l i ams at 7: 47 p. m. At 11: 29 p. m. , af t er

    r et ur ni ng f r om t he Smi t h Mount ai n Lake vacat i on, Appel l ant

    di r ect ed Secr et ary Hazel t o have hi s deput y at t end a meet i ng

    about Anat abl oc wi t h Mr s. McDonnel l at t he Governor ’ s Mansi on

    t he next day.

    Hazel sent a st af f er , Mol l y Huf f st et l er , t o t he August

    1 meet i ng, whi ch Wi l l i ams al so at t ended. Dur i ng t he meet i ng,

    Wi l l i ams di scussed cl i ni cal t r i al s at t he Uni ver si t y of Vi r gi ni a

    ( “UVA”) and Vi r gi ni a Commonweal t h Uni ver si t y ( “VCU”) , home of

    t he Medi cal Col l ege of Vi r gi ni a ( “MCV”) . Then Wi l l i ams and Mr s.

    McDonnel l met wi t h Dr . J ohn Cl ore f r om VCU, who Wi l l i ams sai d

    was “i mpor t ant , and he coul d cause st udi es t o happen at VCU’ s

    medi cal school . ” J . A. 2273. Wi l l i ams - - wi t h Mr s. McDonnel l at

    hi s si de - - t ol d Dr . Cl or e t hat cl i ni cal t est i ng of Anat abl oc i n

    Vi r gi ni a was i mpor t ant t o Appel l ant . Af t er t he meet i ng ended,

    Mr s. McDonnel l not i ced t he Rol ex watch adorni ng Wi l l i ams’ s

    Appeal: 15-4019 Doc: 126 Filed: 07/10/2015 Pg: 12 of 89

  • 8/20/2019 McDonnell Fourth Circuit Opinion

    13/89

    13

    wr i st . She ment i oned t hat she want ed t o get a Rol ex f or

    Appel l ant . When Wi l l i ams asked i f she want ed hi m t o pur chase

    one f or Appel l ant , she r esponded af f i r mat i vel y.

     The next day - - August 2, 2011 - - Mr s. McDonnel l

    pur chased another 522 shar es of St ar st ock at $3. 82 per shar e,

    f or a t ot al of $1, 994. 04.

    Appel l ant and one of hi s sons r et ur ned t o Ki nl och Gol f

    Cl ub on August 13, 2011. The bi l l f or t hi s gol f out i ng, whi ch

    Wi l l i ams agai n pai d, was $1, 309. 17. The next day, Wi l l i ams

    pur chased a Rol ex f r om Mal i bu J ewel er s i n Mal i bu, Cal i f or ni a.

     The Rol ex cost between $6, 000 and $7, 000 and f eat ured a cust om

    engr avi ng: “Rober t F. McDonnel l , 71st Gover nor of Vi r gi ni a. ”

     J . A. 2275 ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) . Mr s. McDonnel l

    l at er t ook sever al pi ct ur es of Appel l ant showi ng of f hi s new

    Rol ex - - pi ct ur es t hat wer e l at er sent t o Wi l l i ams vi a t ext

    message.

    Over t he next f ew weeks, Governor ’ s Mansi on st af f

    pl anned and coordi nat ed a l uncheon t o l aunch Anatabl oc - - an

    event pai d f or by Appel l ant ’ s PAC. I nvi t at i ons bor e t he

    Gover nor ’ s seal and read, “Gover nor and Mr s. Rober t F. McDonnel l

    Request t he Pl easur e of your Company at a Luncheon. ” G. S. A.

    104. I nvi t ees i ncl uded Dr . Cl or e and Dr . J ohn Lazo f r om UVA.

    At t he August 30 l uncheon, each pl ace set t i ng f eat ur ed sampl es

    of Anatabl oc, and Wi l l i ams handed out checks f or gr ant

    Appeal: 15-4019 Doc: 126 Filed: 07/10/2015 Pg: 13 of 89

  • 8/20/2019 McDonnell Fourth Circuit Opinion

    14/89

    14

    appl i cat i ons - - each f or $25, 000 - - t o doct or s f r om var i ous

    medi cal i nst i t ut i ons. 7 

    Appel l ant al so at t ended t he l uncheon. Accor di ng t o

    Lazo, Appel l ant asked at t endees var i ous quest i ons about t hei r

    t hought s about Anatabl oc:

    So I t hi nk one quest i on he asked us was, di dwe t hi nk t hat t her e was some sci ent i f i cval i di t y to t he conver sat i on and some of t hepr e- cl i ni cal st udi es t hat wer e di scussed, orat l east al l uded t o. He al so, I t hi nk,asked us whet her or not t her e was any r easont o expl or e t hi s f ur t her ; woul d i t hel p t o

    have addi t i onal i nf or mat i on. And al so, heasked us about coul d t hi s be somet hi ng goodf or t he Commonweal t h, par t i cul ar l y as i tr el at es t o [ t he] economy or j ob cr eat i on.

     J . A. 3344. Accor di ng t o Wi l l i ams, Appel l ant was “[ a] ski ng

    quest i ons l i ke . . . ‘ What ar e t he end poi nt s her e? What ar e

    you l ooki ng f or t o show ef f i cacy wi t h t he st udi es? How ar e you

    goi ng t o pr oceed wi t h t hat ?’ ” I d. at 2283. Appel l ant al so

    t hanked the at t endees f or t hei r pr esence and “t al ked about hi s

    i nt er est i n a Vi r gi ni a company doi ng t hi s, and hi s i nt er est i n

    t he pr oduct . ” I d. at 3927. Over al l , “[ Appel l ant ] was gener al l y

    suppor t i ve. . . . [ T] hat was t he pur pose. ” I d. at 2284.

    7  I n t ot al , Wi l l i ams pr ovi ded $200, 000 f or gr antappl i cat i ons. Al l of t he checks wer e di st r i but ed t o r esear cher sei t her at or about t he t i me of t he Anat abl oc l aunch l uncheon att he Gover nor ’ s Mansi on.

    Appeal: 15-4019 Doc: 126 Filed: 07/10/2015 Pg: 14 of 89

  • 8/20/2019 McDonnell Fourth Circuit Opinion

    15/89

    15

    Despi t e t he f anf ar e of t he l uncheon, St ar ’ s Pr esi dent ,

    Paul L. Per i t o, began t o wor r y t hat St ar had l ost t he suppor t of

    UVA and VCU. I n t he f al l of 2011, Per i t o was wor ki ng wi t h t hose

    uni ver si t i es t o f i l e gr ant appl i cat i ons. Dur i ng a par t i cul ar

    cal l wi t h UVA of f i ci al s, Per i t o f el t t he of f i ci al s wer e

    unpr epared. Accordi ng t o Per i t o, when Wi l l i ams l earned about

    t hi s i nf or mat i on, “[ h] e was f ur i ous and sai d, ‘ I can’ t

    under st and i t . [ Appel l ant ] and hi s wi f e ar e so suppor t i ve of

    t hi s and suddenl y t he admi ni st r at i on has no i nt er est . ’ ” J . A.

    3934.

    D.

    Pr i or t o t he begi nni ng of 2012, Mr s. McDonnel l sol d

    al l of her 6, 522 shar es of St ar st ock f or $15, 279. 45, r esul t i ng

    i n a l oss of mor e t han $17, 000. Thi s al l owed Appel l ant t o omi t

    di scl osur e of t he st ock pur chases on a r equi r ed f i nanci al

    di scl osure f or m known as a St at ement of Economi c I nt er est . Then

    on J anuary 20, 2012 - - f our days af t er t he St atement of Economi c

    I nt er est had been f i l ed - - Mr s. McDonnel l pur chased 6, 672 shar es

    of St ar st ock at $2. 29 per shar e, f or a t ot al of $15, 276. 88.

    I n t he meant i me, on J anuary 7, 2012, Appel l ant made

    anot her gol f vi si t t o Ki nl och Gol f Cl ub, r unni ng up a $1, 368. 91

    bi l l t hat Wi l l i ams agai n pai d. Appel l ant omi t t ed t hi s gol f

    out i ng and t he 2011 gol f t r i ps f r om hi s St at ement s of Economi c

    I nt er est . See J . A. 723 ( not i ng Appel l ant ’ s “del i ber at e omi ssi on

    Appeal: 15-4019 Doc: 126 Filed: 07/10/2015 Pg: 15 of 89

  • 8/20/2019 McDonnell Fourth Circuit Opinion

    16/89

    16

    of hi s gol f - r el at ed gi f t s pai d by J onni e Wi l l i ams”). Appel l ant

    al so omi t t ed f r om hi s Stat ement of Economi c I nt er est t he $15, 000

    check f or t he cat er er s at hi s daught er ’ s weddi ng.

    Al so i n J anuary 2012, Wi l l i ams di scussed t he Mobo

    pr oper t i es wi t h Mr s. McDonnel l , who want ed addi t i onal l oans. As

    a r esul t , Wi l l i ams agr eed t o l oan more money. At t he same t i me,

    he ment i oned t o Mr s. McDonnel l t hat t he st udi es wi t h UVA were

    pr oceedi ng sl owl y. Mr s. McDonnel l was “f ur i ous when [ Wi l l i ams]

    t ol d her t hat [ t hey wer e] bogged down i n t he admi ni st r at i on. ”

     J . A. 2308. Lat er , Mr s. McDonnel l cal l ed Wi l l i ams t o advi se hi m

    t hat she had r el ayed t hi s i nf or mat i on t o Appel l ant , who

    “want [ ed] t he cont act i nf or mat i on of t he peopl e t hat [ St ar ]

    [ was] deal i ng wi t h at [ UVA] . ” I d. at 2309 ( i nt er nal quot at i on

    marks omi t t ed) .

    Appel l ant f ol l owed up on t hese di scussi ons by cal l i ng

    Wi l l i ams on Febr uar y 3, 2012, t o t al k about a $50, 000 l oan.

    I ni t i al l y, Appel l ant want ed a cash l oan, but Wi l l i ams ment i oned

    t hat he coul d l oan st ock t o Appel l ant . Wi l l i ams pr oposed “t hat

    he coul d l oan t hat st ock ei t her t o [ Appel l ant ’ s] wi f e or he

    coul d l oan i t t o [ Mobo] . ” J . A. 6224. Thi s conver sat i on

    cont i nued t o Febr uar y 29, when Wi l l i ams vi si t ed t he Gover nor ’ s

    Mansi on. Dur i ng t hi s meet i ng, Appel l ant and Wi l l i ams di scussed

    t he pot ent i al t er ms of a st ock t r ansf er . However , Appel l ant and

    Wi l l i ams di d not move f orward wi t h t hi s i dea because Wi l l i ams

    Appeal: 15-4019 Doc: 126 Filed: 07/10/2015 Pg: 16 of 89

  • 8/20/2019 McDonnell Fourth Circuit Opinion

    17/89

    17

    di scover ed he woul d have t o repor t a st ock t r ansf er t o t he

    Secur i t i es and Exchange Commi ssi on. At t r i al , Wi l l i ams

    t est i f i ed t hat he di d not want t o t r ansf er St ar st ock because he

    “di dn’ t want anyone t o know t hat I was hel pi ng t he Governor

    f i nanci al l y wi t h hi s probl ems whi l e he was hel pi ng our company. ”

    I d. at 2333- 34. When asked what he expect ed i n r etur n f r om

    Appel l ant , Wi l l i ams t est i f i ed, “I expect ed what had al r eady

    happened, t hat he woul d cont i nue to hel p me move t hi s pr oduct

    f or war d i n Vi r gi ni a” by “assi st i ng wi t h t he uni ver si t i es, wi t h

    t he t est i ng, or hel p wi t h gover nment empl oyees, or publ i cl y

    suppor t i ng t he pr oduct . ” I d. at 2355. I n t he end, Wi l l i ams

    agr eed t o make a $50, 000 l oan, wr i t i ng a check i n t hi s amount t o

    t he order of Mobo on March 6.

    Al so on Febr uary 3, one of Wi l l i ams’ s empl oyees

    r esponded t o Mr s. McDonnel l ’ s r equest f or a l i st of doct or s

    Wi l l i ams wi shed t o i nvi t e t o an upcomi ng heal t hcar e i ndust r y

    l eader s r ecept i on at t he Gover nor ’ s Mansi on. The empl oyee

    emai l ed t he l i st of doct or s t o Mr s. McDonnel l . Four days l at er

    - - on Febr uar y 7 - - Mr s. McDonnel l sent a r evi sed l i st of

    i nvi t ees f or t hi s event , a l i st t hat now i ncl uded t he doct or s

    i dent i f i ed by Wi l l i ams. The next day, Sar ah Scar br ough,

    di r ect or of t he Gover nor ’ s Mansi on, sent an emai l t o Secr et ar y

    Hazel ’ s assi st ant , El ai na Schr amm. Scarbr ough i nf ormed Schr amm

    t hat “[ t ] he Fi r st Lady and Gover nor wer e goi ng over t he l i st

    Appeal: 15-4019 Doc: 126 Filed: 07/10/2015 Pg: 17 of 89

  • 8/20/2019 McDonnell Fourth Circuit Opinion

    18/89

    18

    l ast ni ght f or t he heal t hcar e i ndust r y event . The Gover nor

    want s t o make sur e [ head of f i cer s at UVA and VCU, al ong wi t h

    t hose of ot her i nst i t ut i ons, ] ar e i ncl uded i n t he l i st . ” G. S. A.

    146.

    Mr s. McDonnel l r ecei ved an emai l , as previ ousl y

    r equest ed by Appel l ant , cont ai ni ng t he names of t he UVA

    of f i ci al s wi t h whom St ar had been wor ki ng. She f or war ded t hi s

    l i st t o Appel l ant and hi s chi ef counsel , J acob J asen Ei ge, on

    Febr uar y 9. The next day, whi l e r i di ng wi t h Appel l ant , Mr s.

    McDonnel l f ol l owed up wi t h Ei ge:

    Pl s cal l J onni e t oday [ and] get hi m t o f i l lu i n on wher e t hi s i s at . Gov want s t o knowwhy not hi ng has devel oped w st udi es af t er J onni e gave $200, 000. I ’ m j ust t r yi ng t ot al k w J onni e. Gov want s t o get t hi s goi ngw VCU MCV. Pl s l et us know what u f i nd outaf t er we r et ur n . . . .

    G. S. A. 154. 8 

    Less t han a week l ater - - on Febr uary 16, 2012 - -

    Appel l ant emai l ed Wi l l i ams t o check on t he st at us of

    cer t i f i cat es and document s r el at i ng t o l oans Wi l l i ams was

    pr ovi di ng f or Mobo. Si x mi nut es af t er Appel l ant sent t hi s

    8  The $200, 000 ment i oned i n Mr s. McDonnel l ’ s emai l t o chi efcounsel Ei ge r ef er r ed t o checks t hat St ar di st r i but ed t or esear cher s ei t her at or about t he t i me of t he Anatabl oc l aunchl uncheon at t he Gover nor ’ s Mansi on.

    Appeal: 15-4019 Doc: 126 Filed: 07/10/2015 Pg: 18 of 89

  • 8/20/2019 McDonnell Fourth Circuit Opinion

    19/89

    19

    emai l , he emai l ed Ei ge: “Pl s see me about anat abl oc i ssues at

    VCU and UVA. Thx. ” G. S. A. 157.

     The heal t hcar e i ndust r y l eader s r ecept i on was hel d on

    Febr uary 29 - - t he same day as Appel l ant ’ s pr i vat e meet i ng about

    secur i ng a l oan f r om Wi l l i ams. Fol l owi ng t he r ecept i on,

    Appel l ant , Mr s. McDonnel l , Wi l l i ams, and t wo doct or s went out

    f or a $1, 400 di nner on Wi l l i ams’ s di me. Dur i ng di nner t he

    di ner s di scussed Anatabl oc. Mr s. McDonnel l t al ked about her use

    of Anat abl oc, and Appel l ant asked one of t he doct or s - - a St ar

    consul t ant - - “How bi g of a di scover y i s t hi s?” J . A. 2728

    ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) . At one poi nt dur i ng t he

    di nner Mr s. McDonnel l i nvi t ed t he t wo doct or s t o st ay at t he

    Gover nor ’ s Mansi on f or t he eveni ng - - an of f er t he doct or s

    accept ed.

    On March 21, 2012, Appel l ant met wi t h Vi r gi ni a

    Secr et ar y of Admi ni st r at i on Li sa Hi cks- Thomas, who over saw st at e

    empl oyee heal t h pl ans and hel ped det ermi ne whi ch dr ugs woul d be

    cover ed by t he st at e heal t h pl an. At one poi nt dur i ng t he

    meet i ng, Appel l ant r eached i nt o hi s pocket , r et r i evi ng a bot t l e

    of Anatabl oc. He t ol d Hi cks- Thomas t hat Anatabl oc was “worki ng

    wel l f or hi m, and t hat he t hought i t woul d be good f or . . .

    st at e empl oyees. ” J . A. 4227. He t hen asked Hi cks- Thomas t o

    meet wi t h repr esent at i ves f r om St ar .

    Appeal: 15-4019 Doc: 126 Filed: 07/10/2015 Pg: 19 of 89

  • 8/20/2019 McDonnell Fourth Circuit Opinion

    20/89

    20

    Al most t wo mont hs l at er - - on May 18, 2012 - -

    Appel l ant sent Wi l l i ams a t ext message concer ni ng yet another

    l oan: “J ohnni e. Per voi cemai l woul d l i ke t o see i f you coul d

    ext end anot her 20k l oan f or t hi s year . Cal l i f possi bl e and

    I ’ l l ask mi ke t o send i nst r uct i ons. Thx bob. ” G. S. A. 166.

     Twel ve mi nut es l at er , Wi l l i ams r esponded, “Done, t el l me who t o

    make i t out t o and addr ess. Wi l l FedEx. J onni e. ” I d. at 168.

    Lat er t he same mont h - - f r om May 18 t o May 26 - -

    Appel l ant and hi s f ami l y vacat i oned at Ki awah I sl and i n Sout h

    Car ol i na. Accor di ng t o Appel l ant , t he $23, 000 vacat i on was a

    gi f t f r om Wi l l i am H. Goodwi n J r . , whom Appel l ant char acter i zed

    as a per sonal f r i end. Appel l ant di d not r epor t t hi s gi f t on hi s

    2012 St at ement of Economi c I nt erest . He sai d he di d not need t o

    r epor t i t because i t f el l under t he “per sonal f r i end” except i on

    t o t he r epor t i ng r equi r ement s.

    Bet ween Apr i l and J ul y 2012, Appel l ant emai l ed and

    t exted Wi l l i ams about St ar st ock on f our occasi ons, each

    coi nci di ng wi t h a r i se i n t he st ock pr i ce. I n r esponse t o a

    t ext sent on J ul y 3, Wi l l i ams sai d, “J ohns Hopki ns human

    cl i ni cal t r i al s repor t on aug 8. I f you need cash l et me know.

    Let ’ s go gol f i ng and sai l i ng Chat ham Bar s i nn Chat ham mass l abor

    day weekend i f you can. Busi ness about t o br eak out st r ong.

     J onni e. ” G. S. A. 170.

    Appeal: 15-4019 Doc: 126 Filed: 07/10/2015 Pg: 20 of 89

  • 8/20/2019 McDonnell Fourth Circuit Opinion

    21/89

    21

    Appel l ant and hi s wi f e t ook Wi l l i ams up on hi s Labor

    Day weekend vacat i on of f er . Wi l l i ams spent more t han $7, 300 on

    t hi s vacat i on f or t he McDonnel l s. Wi l l i ams pai d t he McDonnel l s’

    shar e of a $5, 823. 79 bi l l f or a pr i vat e cl ambake. Al so j oi ni ng

    i n on t he weekend excursi on was one of t he doct or s who at t ended

    t he Febr uar y heal t hcar e l eader s r ecept i on, whom Wi l l i ams i nvi t ed

    i n an at t empt “t o t r y t o hel p get t he Gover nor mor e i nvol ved. ”

     J . A. 2371.

    Appel l ant sai d he l ear ned i n December 2012 t hat Mr s.

    McDonnel l had r epur chased St ar st ock i n J anuary 2012 - - despi t e

    havi ng sol d her ent i r e hol di ng of St ar st ock t he pr evi ous year .

    Appel l ant t est i f i ed t hat he “was pr et t y upset wi t h her . ” J . A.

    6270. Thi s r evel at i on l ed t o a t ense conver sat i on about

    r epor t i ng requi r ement s:

    [ I ] t was her money t hat she had used f ort hi s. But I t ol d her , you know, “Li st en.I f you have t hi s st ock, you know, t hi s i s”- - “agai n, t r i gger s a r epor t i ng r equi r ementf or me. I can do i t , but I need” - - “I j ustdon’ t ” - - “I r eal l y don’ t appr eci at e youdoi ng t hi ngs t hat r eal l y” - - “t hat af f ect mewi t hout ” - - “wi t hout me knowi ng about i t . ”

    I d. at 6271. That Chr i st mas, Mr s. McDonnel l t r ansf er r ed her

    St ar st ock t o her chi l dr en as a gi f t . Thi s agai n al l owed

    Appel l ant t o f i l e a St at ement of Economi c I nt er est t hat di d not

    r epor t owner shi p of t he st ock. That same mont h - - December 2012

    Appeal: 15-4019 Doc: 126 Filed: 07/10/2015 Pg: 21 of 89

  • 8/20/2019 McDonnell Fourth Circuit Opinion

    22/89

    22

    - - Wi l l i ams gave Appel l ant ’ s daught er J eani ne a $10, 000 weddi ng

    gi f t .

    E.

    Event ual l y, al l of t hese event s came t o l i ght . And on

     J anuar y 21, 2014, a grand j ury i ndi ct ed Appel l ant and Mr s.

    McDonnel l i n a f our t een- count i ndi ct ment . Appel l ant and Mr s.

    McDonnel l were charged wi t h one count of conspi r acy t o commi t

    honest - ser vi ces wi r e f r aud, i n vi ol at i on of 18 U. S. C. § 1349;

    t hr ee 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; one count of conspi r acy t o obt ai n pr oper t y 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; si x

    count s of obt ai ni ng pr oper t y 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; t wo count s of maki ng a f al se

    st at ement , i n vi ol at i on of 18 U. S. C. § 1014; and one count of

    obst r ucti on of of f i ci al pr oceedi ngs, i n vi ol at i on of 18 U. S. C.

    § 1512( c) ( 2) .

    Ul t i mat el y, t he j ur y ver di ct of Sept ember 4, 2014,

    f ound Appel l ant not gui l t y of t he f al se st at ement s count s but

    gui l t y of al l el even count s of cor r upt i on. 9 

    9  The cor r upt i on count s i ncl ude one count of conspi r acy t ocommi t honest - ser vi ces wi r e f r aud pur suant t o 18 U. S. C. § 1349;t hr ee count s of honest - ser vi ces wi r e f r aud pur suant t o 18 U. S. C.§ 1343; one count of conspi r acy t o obt ai n pr oper t y under col orof of f i ci al r i ght pur suant t o 18 U. S. C. § 1951; and si x count sof obt ai ni ng pr oper t y under col or of of f i ci al r i ght pur suant t o( Cont i nued)

    Appeal: 15-4019 Doc: 126 Filed: 07/10/2015 Pg: 22 of 89

  • 8/20/2019 McDonnell Fourth Circuit Opinion

    23/89

    23

    At sent enci ng t he Gover nment r equest ed a sent ence of

    78 mont hs - - or si x and a hal f year s - - of i mpr i sonment , whi ch

    was at t he l ow end of t he appl i cabl e Sent enci ng Gui del i nes

    r ange. However , t he di st r i ct cour t depart ed downward and

    sent enced Appel l ant t o two years of i mpr i sonment , f ol l owed by

    t wo year s of super vi sed r el ease. Appel l ant now chal l enges hi s

    convi cti ons, asser t i ng a l i t any of er r or s.

    I I .

    A.

    Mot i on f or Severance

     To begi n, Appel l ant ar gues t hat t he di st r i ct cour t

    er r ed when i t deni ed both hi s mot i on f or sever ance and hi s

    r equest f or ex par t e consi der at i on of t hi s mot i on. We r evi ew

    t hese r ul i ngs f or an abuse of di scr et i on. See Uni t ed St at es v.

    Li ght y, 616 F. 3d 321, 348 ( 4t h Ci r . 2010) ( sever ance) ; RZS

    Hol di ngs AVV v. PDVSA Pet r ol eo S. A. , 506 F. 3d 350, 356 ( 4t h Ci r .

    2007) ( ex par t e pr oceedi ng) .

    1.

    Appel l ant cont ends t hat he was ent i t l ed t o a t r i al

    separ at e f r om t he t r i al of Mr s. McDonnel l . He ar gues t hat a

     j oi nt t r i al precl uded hi m f r om cal l i ng Mr s. McDonnel l as a

    18 U. S. C. § 1951. Onl y Mr s. McDonnel l was char ged wi t hobst r ucti on of of f i ci al pr oceedi ngs.

    Appeal: 15-4019 Doc: 126 Filed: 07/10/2015 Pg: 23 of 89

  • 8/20/2019 McDonnell Fourth Circuit Opinion

    24/89

    24

    wi t ness and t hus i nt r oduci ng excul pat or y t est i mony. The

    di st r i ct cour t deni ed Appel l ant ’ s mot i on f or sever ance.

    Appel l ant cl ai ms t hi s deci si on was an abuse of t he cour t ’ s

    di scret i on.

    I n gener al , “def endant s i ndi ct ed t oget her shoul d be

    t r i ed t oget her . ” Li ght y, 616 F. 3d at 348. Thi s i s especi al l y

    t r ue when, as i n t hi s case, t he def endant s ar e charged wi t h

    conspi r acy. See Uni t ed St at es v. Parodi , 703 F. 2d 768, 779 ( 4t h

    Ci r . 1983) . So a def endant seeki ng sever ance based on t he need

    f or a co- def endant ’ s t est i mony must make an i ni t i al showi ng of

    “( 1) a bona f i de need f or t he test i mony of hi s co- def endant , ( 2)

    t he l i kel i hood t hat t he co- def endant woul d t est i f y at a second

    t r i al and wai ve hi s Fi f t h Amendment pr i vi l ege, ( 3) t he subst ance

    of hi s co- def endant ’ s t est i mony, and (4) t he excul pat or y nat ur e

    and ef f ect of such t est i mony. ” I d. Af t er t he i ni t i al showi ng

    i s made, a di st r i ct cour t shoul d

    ( 1) exami ne t he si gni f i cance of t het est i mony i n r el at i on t o t he def endant ’ st heor y of def ense; ( 2) assess t he ext ent ofpr ej udi ce caused by t he absence of t het est i mony; ( 3) pay cl ose at t ent i on t o j udi ci al admi ni st r at i on and economy; ( 4)gi ve wei ght t o t he t i mel i ness of t he

    mot i on[ ; ] and ( 5) consi der t he l i kel i hoodt hat t he co- def endant ’ s t est i mony coul d bei mpeached.

    I d.

    Appeal: 15-4019 Doc: 126 Filed: 07/10/2015 Pg: 24 of 89

  • 8/20/2019 McDonnell Fourth Circuit Opinion

    25/89

    25

    Appel l ant f ai l ed t o sat i sf y even t he i ni t i al showi ng

    r equi r ement s of Uni t ed St at es v. Par odi . The di st r i ct cour t

    deni ed Appel l ant ’ s mot i on f or sever ance because Appel l ant

    of f er ed onl y vague and concl usor y st at ement s r egardi ng t he

    subst ance of Mr s. McDonnel l ’ s test i mony. As we expr essed i n

    Par odi , vague and concl usory st at ement s r egar di ng pot ent i al

    t est i mony ar e not enough t o est abl i sh t he subst ance of a co-

    def endant ’ s test i mony. See 703 F. 2d at 780.

    Appel l ant ’ s mot i on t o sever pai nt s a pi ct ur e of Mr s.

    McDonnel l ’ s pot ent i al t est i mony i n br oad st r okes wi t hout f i l l i ng

    i n any det ai l s:

    Fi r st , her t est i mony woul d di spr ove t heGover nment ’ s pr i mar y cl ai m t hat t heMcDonnel l s acted i n concer t t hr ough acr i mi nal conspi r acy t o cor r upt l y acceptgi f t s and l oans i n exchange f or Mr .McDonnel l usi ng hi s of f i ce t o benef i t

    Wi l l i ams and hi s company. Second, hert est i mony woul d ref ut e t he Government ’ sal l egat i on t hat Mr . McDonnel l agr eed orpr omi sed t o use hi s of f i ce t o i mpr oper l y“pr omot e” St ar ’ s pr oduct s or t o “obt ai nr esear ch st udi es f or St ar Sci ent i f i c’ spr oduct s. ” Thi r d, Mr s. McDonnel l woul dr ef ut e t he Gover nment ’ s al l egat i on t hat shesol i ci t ed cer t ai n gi f t s and l oans i dent i f i edi n t he I ndi ct ment . Fi nal l y, Mr s. McDonnel lwoul d r ef ut e t he Gover nment ’ s al l egat i on

    t hat t he McDonnel l s “t ook st eps . . . t oconceal ” t hei r supposed scheme.

     J . A. 296 ( al t er nat i on i n or i gi nal ) ( ci t at i ons omi t t ed) .

    Present ed wi t h onl y these unadorned st at ement s r egardi ng t he

    subst ance of Mr s. McDonnel l ’ s pot ent i al t est i mony, t he di st r i ct

    Appeal: 15-4019 Doc: 126 Filed: 07/10/2015 Pg: 25 of 89

  • 8/20/2019 McDonnell Fourth Circuit Opinion

    26/89

    26

    cour t appr opr i at el y exer ci sed i t s di scret i on when i t deni ed t he

    mot i on t o sever .

    2.

    Appel l ant cl ai med he coul d pr ovi de a more det ai l ed

    account of t he subst ance of Mr s. McDonnel l ’ s pot ent i al t est i mony

    - - an account he of f er ed t o shar e wi t h t he di st r i ct cour t on t he

    condi t i on t hat t he di st r i ct cour t r evi ew t he evi dence ex par t e.

     The di st r i ct cour t deni ed t hi s i nvi t at i on, f i ndi ng an ex par t e

    pr oceedi ng woul d be i nappr opr i at e.

    Ex par t e pr oceedi ngs and communi cat i ons ar e di sf avored

    because t hey ar e “f undament al l y at var i ance wi t h our concept i ons

    of due pr ocess. ” Doe v. Hampt on, 566 F. 2d 265, 276 ( D. C. Ci r .

    1977) , quot ed i n Thompson v. Gr eene, 427 F. 3d 263, 269 n. 7 ( 4t h

    Ci r . 2005) . However , such proceedi ngs and communi cat i ons may be

    per mi ssi bl e i n l i mi t ed ci r cumst ances. “[ O] ur anal ysi s shoul d

    f ocus, f i r st , on t he par t i es’ oppor t uni t y t o par t i ci pat e i n t he

    cour t ’ s deci si on and, second, on whet her t he ex par t e

    pr oceedi ngs wer e unf ai r l y pr ej udi ci al . ” RZS Hol di ngs AVV, 506

    F. 3d at 357.

    Ex par t e pr oceedi ngs wer e not j ust i f i ed i n t hi s case.

    Appel l ant sought t o wi t hhol d f r om t he Gover nment al l of t he

    i nf or mat i on necessary t o est abl i sh t he necessi t y of sever ance.

     Thi s proposal woul d have bar r ed t he Government f r om chal l engi ng

    whet her Appel l ant act ual l y sat i sf i ed t he i ni t i al showi ng

    Appeal: 15-4019 Doc: 126 Filed: 07/10/2015 Pg: 26 of 89

  • 8/20/2019 McDonnell Fourth Circuit Opinion

    27/89

    27

    r equi r ed by Par odi . I f t he di st r i ct cour t pr oceeded as

    Appel l ant r equest ed, i t woul d have been t he onl y ent i t y i n a

    posi t i on t o chal l enge Appel l ant ’ s cont ent i ons. The di st r i ct

    cour t was r el uct ant t o assume t he rol e of an advocat e when

    eval uat i ng “a mot i on t o sever [ , whi ch] r equi r es a f act -

    i nt ensi ve, mul t i - f act or ed anal ysi s f or whi ch t her e i s a

    hei ght ened need f or wel l - i nf or med advocacy. ” J . A. 351. 10  I t

    10  I n Uni t ed St at es v. Napue, t he Sevent h Ci r cui t el abor at ed

    on t he probl ems present ed by ex par t e communi cat i ons bet ween acour t and t he Gover nment :

    Ex part e communi cat i ons bet ween t hegover nment and t he cour t depr i ve t hedef endant of not i ce of t he pr eci se cont entof t he communi cat i ons and an oppor t uni t y t or espond. These communi cat i ons t her eby cancr eate both t he appearance of i mpr opr i et yand t he possi bi l i t y of act ual mi sconduct .Even wher e t he gover nment act s i n good f ai t h

    and di l i gent l y at t empt s t o pr esenti nf or mat i on f ai r l y dur i ng an ex par t epr oceedi ng, t he gover nment ’ s i nf or mat i on i sl i kel y t o be l ess r el i abl e and t he cour t ’ sul t i mat e f i ndi ngs l ess accur at e t han i f t hedef endant had been per mi t t ed t o par t i ci pat e.However i mpar t i al a pr osecut or may mean t obe, he i s an advocate, accust omed t o st at i ngonl y one si de of t he case. An ex part epr oceedi ng pl aces a subst ant i al bur den upont he t r i al j udge t o per f or m what i s nat ur al l y

    and pr oper l y the f unct i on of an advocat e.

    834 F. 2d 1311, 1318–19 ( 7t h Ci r . 1987) ( emphasi s omi t t ed)( ci t at i ons omi t t ed) ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) . Ther ever sal of r ol es i n t hi s case does not change t he equat i on.See Al der man v. Uni t ed St ates, 394 U. S. 165, 184 (1969) ( “As t heneed f or adver sary i nqui r y i s i ncr eased by t he compl exi t y of t hei ssues present ed f or adj udi cat i on, and by t he consequent( Cont i nued)

    Appeal: 15-4019 Doc: 126 Filed: 07/10/2015 Pg: 27 of 89

  • 8/20/2019 McDonnell Fourth Circuit Opinion

    28/89

    28

    pr oper l y exer ci sed i t s di scret i on by denyi ng Appel l ant ’ s

    r equest .

    Appel l ant al so mai nt ai ns t hat t he di st r i ct cour t er r ed

    by f ai l i ng t o def er i t s r ul i ng on t he mot i on t o sever unt i l 14

    days pr i or t o t r i al . The di st r i ct cour t was not obl i gat ed t o

    consi der t hi s r equest because Appel l ant wai t ed unt i l hi s r epl y

    t o ar gue t hi s i ssue. Cf . U. S. S. E. C. v. Pi r at e I nvest or LLC,

    580 F. 3d 233, 255 n. 23 ( 4t h Ci r . 2009) ( “Or di nar i l y we do not

    consi der ar gument s r ai sed f or t he f i r st t i me i n a repl y

    br i ef . . . . ”) ; Mi ke’ s Tr ai n House, I nc. v. Br oadway Ltd.

    I mport s, LLC, 708 F. Supp. 2d 527, 535 ( D. Md. 2010) ( appl yi ng

    t hi s pr i nci pl e t o r epl y memor anda) . We ar e sat i sf i ed,

    t her ef or e, t hat t he di st r i ct cour t di d not abuse i t s di scr et i on

    by denyi ng t hi s r equest out r i ght .

    Appel l ant si mpl y f ai l ed to pr ovi de adequat e

     j ust i f i cat i on f or hi s cl ai m t hat a severance was war r ant ed. He

    was not ent i t l ed t o an ex par t e exami nat i on of hi s evi dence; he

    was not ent i t l ed t o def er r al of t he di st r i ct cour t ’ s rul i ng.

    Accor di ngl y, we af f i r m t he deni al of Appel l ant ’ s mot i on t o

    sever .

    i nadequacy of ex part e pr ocedur es as a means f or t hei r accur ater esol ut i on, t he di spl acement of wel l - i nf or med advocacynecessar i l y becomes l ess j ust i f i abl e. ” ( emphasi s omi t t ed) ) .

    Appeal: 15-4019 Doc: 126 Filed: 07/10/2015 Pg: 28 of 89

  • 8/20/2019 McDonnell Fourth Circuit Opinion

    29/89

    29

    B.

    Voi r Di r e

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

    t o adequat el y quest i on pr ospect i ve j ur or s on t he subj ect of

    pr et r i al publ i ci t y. He compl ai ns t hat , dur i ng t he voi r di r e

    pr oceedi ngs, t he cour t decl i ned hi s r equest f or i ndi vi dual

    quest i oni ng on t hi s t opi c. I nst ead, t he cour t pol l ed t he

    members of t he veni r e as a gr oup, aski ng whet her any of t hem

    bel i eved t hemsel ves t o be i ncapabl e of “put [ t i ng] asi de what ever

    i t i s t hat [ t hey had] hear d. ” J . A. 1692. The cour t di d cal l

    ei ght pr ospect i ve j ur or s t o t he bench f or one- on- one

    quest i oni ng, but onl y af t er t he def ense si ngl ed t hem out on t he

    basi s of t hei r r esponses t o a j ur y sel ect i on quest i onnai r e.

    Appel l ant ar gues t hat such “per f unct or y” quest i oni ng vi ol at ed

    hi s Si xt h Amendment r i ght t o an i mpar t i al j ur y. Appel l ant ’ s Br .

    65. Because “[ t ] he conduct of voi r di r e necessar i l y i s

    commi t t ed t o t he sound di scr et i on of t he t r i al cour t , ” Uni t ed

    St at es v. Lancast er , 96 F. 3d 734, 738 ( 4t h Ci r . 1996) ( en banc) ,

    we al so r evi ew t hi s cont ent i on f or abuse of di scr et i on, see

    Uni t ed St at es v. Car o, 597 F. 3d 608, 613 ( 4t h Ci r . 2010) .

    Appel l ant ’ s ar gument begi ns i nauspi ci ousl y, wi t h an

    asser t i on t hat t he Supr eme Cour t ’ s deci si on i n Ski l l i ng v.

    Uni t ed St at es, 130 S. Ct . 2896 ( 2010) , est abl i shes mi ni mum

    r equi r ement s f or voi r di r e i n “publ i ci t y- sat ur at ed” cases l i ke

    Appeal: 15-4019 Doc: 126 Filed: 07/10/2015 Pg: 29 of 89

  • 8/20/2019 McDonnell Fourth Circuit Opinion

    30/89

    30

    t hi s one. Appel l ant ’ s Br . 22. I n Ski l l i ng, he cl ai ms, t he

    Cour t appr oved t he voi r di r e pr ocedur e “onl y because” t he t r i al

    cour t asked pr ospect i ve j ur or s t o i ndi cat e whet her t hey had

    f ormed an opi ni on about t he def endant ’ s gui l t or i nnocence and

    l at er exami ned t hem i ndi vi dual l y about pr et r i al publ i ci t y. I d.

    Appel l ant t hen r easons t hat , because t he t r i al cour t i n t hi s

    case t ook nei t her of t hose st eps, i t necessar i l y “f ai l ed t o

    ‘ pr ovi de a r easonabl e assur ance t hat pr ej udi ce woul d be

    di scover ed i f pr esent . ’ ” I d. ( quot i ng Lancast er , 96 F. 3d at

    740) .

    Ski l l i ng, however , does not pur port t o hand down

    commandment s f or t he pr oper conduct of voi r di r e pr oceedi ngs.

    See 130 S. Ct . at 2918 ( expl ai ni ng t hat t he l egal i ssue under

    r evi ew was, nar r owl y, “t he adequacy of j ur y sel ect i on i n

    Ski l l i ng’ s case” ( emphasi s suppl i ed) ) . On t he cont r ar y, t he

    Cour t i n Ski l l i ng r ecommi t t ed i t sel f t o t he pr i nci pl e t hat j ur y

    sel ect i on i s unsuscept i bl e t o any “har d- and- f ast f or mul a”; as

    al ways, i t r emai ns “par t i cul ar l y wi t hi n t he pr ovi nce of t he

    t r i al j udge. ” I d. at 2917 ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) ;

    see al so Uni t ed St at es v. Wood, 299 U. S. 123, 145- 46 ( 1936)

    ( st at i ng t hat pr ocedur es f or det ect i ng and r oot i ng out j ur or

    bi as cannot be “chai ned t o any anci ent and ar t i f i ci al f or mul a”) .

     Tr i al j udges, as we have r epeat edl y r ecogni zed, r et ai n broad

    di scret i on over t he conduct of voi r di r e, see, e. g. , Uni t ed

    Appeal: 15-4019 Doc: 126 Filed: 07/10/2015 Pg: 30 of 89

  • 8/20/2019 McDonnell Fourth Circuit Opinion

    31/89

    31

    St at es v. J ef f er y, 631 F. 3d 669, 673 ( 4t h Ci r . 2011) , bot h as a

    gener al mat t er and i n t he ar ea of pr et r i al publ i ci t y,

    speci f i cal l y, see, e. g. , Uni t ed St at es v. Bai l ey, 112 F. 3d 758,

    770 ( 4t h Ci r . 1997) ; Uni t ed St at es v. Bakker , 925 F. 2d 728, 733-

    34 ( 4t h Ci r . 1991) . The Supr eme Cour t has i t sel f emphasi zed t he

    “wi de di scret i on” t hat t r i al cour t s enj oy i n quest i oni ng

    pr ospecti ve j ur or s about pr et r i al publ i ci t y:

    Par t i cul ar l y wi t h r espect t o pr et r i alpubl i ci t y, we t hi nk t hi s pr i mar y r el i ance ont he j udgment of t he t r i al cour t makes good

    sense. The j udge of t hat cour t si t s i n t hel ocal e wher e t he publ i ci t y i s sai d t o havehad i t s ef f ect and br i ngs t o hi s eval uat i onof any such cl ai m hi s own per cept i on of t hedept h and ext ent of news st or i es t hat mi ghti nf l uence a j ur or . The t r i al cour t , ofcour se, does not i mput e hi s own per cept i onst o t he j ur ors who ar e bei ng exami ned, butt hese per cept i ons shoul d be of assi st ance t oi t i n deci di ng how det ai l ed an i nqui r y t omake of t he members of t he j ur y veni r e.

    Mu’ Mi n v. Vi r gi ni a, 500 U. S. 415, 427 ( 1991) .

    I n hi s openi ng br i ef , Appel l ant accuses t he di st r i ct

    cour t of “l i mi t [ i ng] voi r di r e on t hi s i ssue t o aski ng t he

    pr ospect i ve j ur or s en masse to si t down i f t hey f el t t hey coul d

    be f ai r . ” Appel l ant ’ s Br . 65. The cour t , t hough, di d a good

    deal more t han t hat .

     J ury sel ect i on i n t hi s case commenced wi t h a cour t -

    appr oved j ur y quest i onnai r e spanni ng 99 quest i ons, f our of whi ch

    pr essed pr ospect i ve j ur or s f or i nf or mat i on about t hei r exposur e

    Appeal: 15-4019 Doc: 126 Filed: 07/10/2015 Pg: 31 of 89

  • 8/20/2019 McDonnell Fourth Circuit Opinion

    32/89

    32

    t o pret r i al publ i ci t y. 11  The quest i onnai r e - - by and l ar ge, a

    condensed ver si on of a sl i ght l y l onger pr oposed quest i onnai r e

    t hat t he par t i es submi t t ed j oi nt l y - - asked r espondent s t o stat e

    whether t hey had “seen, hear d or r ead anyt hi ng” about t he case;

    “[ h] ow cl osel y” t hey had f ol l owed news about t he case; and f r om

    whi ch t ypes of medi a t hey had hear d about i t . J . A. 592- 93. I t

    t hen asked whet her each r espondent had “expr essed an opi ni on

    about t hi s case or about t hose i nvol ved t o anyone, ” and i f so,

    t o el aborate on both “t he ci r cumst ances” and t he opi ni on

    expr essed. I d. at 593.

    Appel l ant makes much of t he f act t hat t he j ur y

    quest i onnai r e mer el y asked whet her pr ospect i ve j ur ors had

    “expr essed” an opi ni on about t he case, r ather t han whet her t hey

    had f ormed an opi ni on about i t . Appel l ant , however , bears much

    of t he r esponsi bi l i t y f or t he wor di ng and scope of quest i ons on

    t hat document . And whi l e t he j oi nt l y pr oposed j ur y

    quest i onnai r e f r om whi ch t he f i nal quest i onnai r e was cul l ed di d,

    i ndeed, ask whet her pr ospect i ve j ur ors had “f ormed” an opi ni on

    about t he case, t he wordi ng of t hi s proposed quest i on was

    suspect . I t asked: “Based on what you have r ead, heard, seen,

    11  Anot her sect i on of t he quest i onnai r e asked pr ospect i ve j uror s t o di scuss t hei r news consumpt i on mor e gener al l y.Respondent s wer e i nst r uct ed t o l i st , among ot her t hi ngs, t hepr i nt and onl i ne news sour ces t hey r ead most of t en and anywebsi t es t hey vi si t r egul ar l y.

    Appeal: 15-4019 Doc: 126 Filed: 07/10/2015 Pg: 32 of 89

  • 8/20/2019 McDonnell Fourth Circuit Opinion

    33/89

    33

    and/ or over hear d i n conver sat i ons, pl ease t el l us what opi ni ons,

    i f any, you have f or med about t he gui l t or i nnocence of Rober t

    F. McDonnel l . ” J . A. 527. So wor ded, t hi s quest i on i nvi t es

    r espondent s t o del i ber at e on t he def endant ’ s gui l t or i nnocence

    and t o st ake out a posi t i on bef or e even a si ngl e j ur or has been

    seat ed. The cour t was j ust i f i ed i n r ej ect i ng i t . 12 

    Lat er , t he cour t di d exer ci se i t s di scr et i on t o

    quest i on t he pr ospect i ve j ur or s as a gr oup, i nst ead of

    i ndi vi dual l y, on t he subj ect of pr et r i al publ i ci t y. See Bakker ,

    925 F. 2d at 734 ( “[ I ] t i s wel l est abl i shed t hat a t r i al j udge

    may quest i on pr ospect i ve j ur or s col l ect i vel y r at her t han

    i ndi vi dual l y. ”) . Dur i ng t hi s por t i on of t he i n- cour t voi r di r e,

    t he cour t asked t he member s of t he veni r e, col l ect i vel y, t o

    st and up i f t hey had r ead, hear d, or seen any medi a report s

    about t he case. The cour t t hen asked t he pr ospect i ve j ur or s t o

    12  I ndeed, t he cour t ’ s deci si on not t o pose Appel l ant ’ ssuggest ed quest i on f i nds support i n t he Supr eme Cour t ’ s gui danceon mat t er s of pr et r i al publ i ci t y. See Mu’ Mi n, 500 U. S. at 430( expl ai ni ng t hat t he quest i on f or voi r di r e i s “whet her t he j uror s . . . had such f i xed opi ni ons t hat t hey coul d not j udgei mpar t i al l y t he gui l t of t he def endant ” ( al t er at i on i n or i gi nal )( emphasi s suppl i ed) ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) ) ; I r vi n

    v. Dowd, 366 U. S. 717, 723 (1961) ( “To hol d that t he mereexi st ence of any pr econcei ved not i on as t o the gui l t ori nnocence of an accused, wi t hout mor e, i s suf f i ci ent t o r ebutt he pr esumpt i on of a pr ospect i ve j ur or ’ s i mpar t i al i t y woul d bet o est abl i sh an i mpossi bl e st andar d. I t i s suf f i ci ent i f t he j uror can l ay asi de hi s i mpressi on or opi ni on and r ender aver di ct based on t he evi dence pr esent ed i n cour t . ”) .

    Appeal: 15-4019 Doc: 126 Filed: 07/10/2015 Pg: 33 of 89

  • 8/20/2019 McDonnell Fourth Circuit Opinion

    34/89

    34

    si t down i f , despi t e t hi s, t hey bel i eved t hey wer e “abl e t o put

    asi de what ever i t i s t hat [ t hey] hear d, l i st en t o t he evi dence

    i n t hi s case and be f ai r t o bot h si des. ” J . A. 1691- 92. Even

    st i l l , t he cour t i nvi t ed def ense counsel t o i dent i f y any

    speci f i c veni r emen i t woul d l i ke t o quest i on f ur t her on t hi s

    subj ect . I n r esponse, Appel l ant ’ s counsel br ought f or war d t he

    names of ei ght pr ospect i ve j ur ors, and the cour t pr oceeded to

    summon each of t hose pr ospect i ve j ur or s t o t he bench f or

    i ndi vi dual quest i oni ng. The cour t st r uck one of t hese

    i ndi vi dual s, wi t hout obj ect i on, based on her r esponses t o i t s

    quest i ons. When t hi s pr ocess was compl et e, t he cour t asked

    Appel l ant ’ s counsel whet her t her e was “[ a]nybody el se” he wi shed

    t o quest i on. J . A. 1706. “Not on publ i ci t y, ” counsel sai d. I d.

    Appel l ant , r el yi ng on our deci si on i n Uni t ed St at es v.

    Hanki sh, 502 F. 2d 71 ( 4t h Ci r . 1974) , ar gues t hat t he

    pr ospect i ve j ur or s’ acknowl edgment t hat t hey had been exposed t o

    pr et r i al publ i ci t y obl i gat ed t he t r i al cour t t o quest i on ever y

    si ngl e one of t hem - - not mer el y one at a t i me, but out si de of

    t he ot her s’ pr esence. See Appel l ant ’ s Br . 65. Hanki sh,

    however , i s i nappl i cabl e. The er r or i n t hat case was a di st r i ct

    cour t ’ s r ef usal t o pol l j ur or s, af t er t hey had al r eady been

    seat ed, t o di scer n whet her any of t hem had r ead a par t i cul ar ,

    “hi ghl y pr ej udi ci al ” ar t i cl e t hat r an i n t he l ocal newspaper on

    t he second day of t he t r i al . 502 F. 2d at 76. We di d not hol d

    Appeal: 15-4019 Doc: 126 Filed: 07/10/2015 Pg: 34 of 89

  • 8/20/2019 McDonnell Fourth Circuit Opinion

    35/89

    35

    t hen, and have not hel d si nce, t hat i ndi vi dual quest i oni ng, out

    of ear shot of t he r est of t he veni r e, i s r equi r ed t o al l evi at e

    gener al i zed concer ns about t he per ni ci ous ef f ect s of pr et r i al

    publ i ci t y. On t he cont r ar y, we have hel d t hat mer el y aski ng f or

    a show of hands was not an abuse of di scr et i on. See Bai l ey, 112

    F. 3d at 769- 70 ( f i ndi ng no abuse of di scr et i on wher e a cour t

    asked pr ospect i ve j ur or s t o r ai se t hei r hands i f t hey had hear d

    or r ead about t he case and, separ at el y, i f “anythi ng t hey had

    hear d woul d pr edi spose t hem t o f avor one si de or t he ot her ”) .

    We ar e sat i sf i ed t hat t he t r i al cour t ’ s quest i oni ng i n

    t hi s case was adequate t o “pr ovi de a r easonabl e assur ance t hat

    pr ej udi ce woul d be di scover ed i f pr esent . ” Lancast er , 96 F. 3d

    at 740 ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) ; see al so Uni t ed

    St ates v. Hsu, 364 F. 3d 192, 203- 04 ( 4t h Ci r . 2004) . And

    Appel l ant does not cont end that any act ual j ur or bi as has been

    di scover ed. We concl ude, t her ef or e, t hat t he cour t di d not

    abuse i t s di scr et i on.

    C.

    Evi dent i ar y Rul i ngs

    Appel l ant asser t s t he di st r i ct cour t made mul t i pl e

    er r oneous evi dent i ar y r ul i ngs. I n gener al , we r evi ew

    evi dent i ar y r ul i ngs f or an abuse of di scret i on, af f or di ng

    subst ant i al def er ence t o t he di st r i ct cour t . See Uni t ed St at es

    v. Medf or d, 661 F. 3d 746, 751 ( 4t h Ci r . 2011) . “A di st r i ct

    Appeal: 15-4019 Doc: 126 Filed: 07/10/2015 Pg: 35 of 89

  • 8/20/2019 McDonnell Fourth Circuit Opinion

    36/89

    36

    cour t abuses i t s di scret i on i f i t s concl usi on i s gui ded by

    er r oneous l egal pr i nci pl es or r est s upon a cl ear l y er r oneous

    f actual f i ndi ng. ” West ber r y v. Gi sl aved Gummi AB, 178 F. 3d 257,

    261 ( 4t h Ci r . 1999) ( ci t at i ons omi t t ed) . Rever sal i s

    appr opr i at e i f we have “a def i ni t e and f i r m convi ct i on t hat t he

    cour t bel ow commi t t ed a cl ear er r or of j udgment i n t he

    concl usi on i t r eached upon a wei ghi ng of t he r el evant f act or s. ”

    I d. ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) .

    1.

    Excl usi on of Exper t Test i mony

    Appel l ant obj ect s t o t he excl usi on of hi s pr oposed

    exper t t est i mony about Wi l l i ams’ s cooper at i on agr eement wi t h t he

    Government as wel l as expert t est i mony about t he St at ement s of

    Economi c I nt er est . We r ej ect t hese cl ai ms, as t he t r i al cour t ’ s

    deci si ons t o excl ude t hi s evi dence wer e not abuses of

    di scret i on.

    a.

    Fi r st , Appel l ant ar gues t hat he shoul d have been

    per mi t t ed t o pr esent exper t t est i mony about Wi l l i ams’ s

    cooperat i on agr eement wi t h t he Gover nment , whi ch provi ded

    Wi l l i ams wi t h t r ansact i onal i mmuni t y. I n a l et t er dat ed May 30,

    2014, t he Gover nment out l i ned the i mmuni zed conduct :

    ( 1) conduct i nvol vi ng hi s agr eement t opr ovi de, and hi s pr ovi si on of , t hi ngs ofval ue t o f or mer Vi r gi ni a Gover nor Rober t F.

    Appeal: 15-4019 Doc: 126 Filed: 07/10/2015 Pg: 36 of 89

  • 8/20/2019 McDonnell Fourth Circuit Opinion

    37/89

    37

    McDonnel l , f or mer Fi r st Lady of Vi r gi ni aMaur een P. McDonnel l , and t hei r f ami l ymember s; ( 2) conduct r el ated to l oansWi l l i ams r ecei ved f r om 2009 t o 2012 i nexchange f or hi s pl edge of St ar Sci ent i f i cst ock; and ( 3) conduct r el at ed t o Wi l l i ams’gi f t s of St ar Sci ent i f i c stock t o cer t ai nt r ust s f r om 2009 t o 2012.

     J . A. 7918. Appel l ant of f er ed t he exper t t est i mony of Pet er

    Whi t e - - a part ner at Schul t e Roth & Zabel LLP and f ormer

    Assi st ant Uni t ed St at es At t or ney - - t o “expl ai n[ ] t r ansact i onal

    i mmuni t y, i t s val ue, and i t s uni queness” and t o “hel p[ ] t he j ur y

    under st and Wi l l i ams’ s deal so i t coul d assess hi s credi bi l i t y. ”

    Appel l ant ’ s Br . 78.

    Exper t t est i mony cannot be used f or t he sol e pur pose

    of under mi ni ng a wi t ness’ s credi bi l i t y. See Uni t ed St at es v.

    Al l en, 716 F. 3d 98, 105–06 ( 4t h Ci r . 2013) . Her e, t he def ense

    wi shed t o pr esent Whi t e’ s t est i mony i n order t o emphasi ze t he

    r ar i t y of Wi l l i ams’ s agr eement and t o i mpl y, as a resul t , t hat

    Wi l l i ams had more r eason t o pr ovi de f al se or gr eat l y exagger ated

    t est i mony. I n ot her words, t he sol e pur pose of Whi t e’ s

    t est i mony was t o under mi ne Wi l l i ams’ s credi bi l i t y. Thi s i s a

    mat t er best l ef t t o cr oss exami nat i on. Accor di ngl y, we cannot

    concl ude t hat t he di st r i ct cour t ’ s deci si on t o excl ude t hi s

    evi dence was an abuse of di scr et i on. See Al l en, 716 F. 3d at 106

    ( “A j ur or can connect t he dot s and under st and t he i mpl i cat i ons

    t hat a pl ea agr eement mi ght have on a codef endant ’ s t est i mony - -

    Appeal: 15-4019 Doc: 126 Filed: 07/10/2015 Pg: 37 of 89

  • 8/20/2019 McDonnell Fourth Circuit Opinion

    38/89

    38

    i t i s cer t ai nl y wi t hi n t he r eal m of common sense t hat cer t ai n

    wi t nesses woul d have an i ncent i ve t o i ncr i mi nate t he def endant

    i n exchange f or a l ower sent ence. ” ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks

    omi t t ed) ) . 13 

    b.

    Second, Appel l ant argues t hat he shoul d have been

    per mi t t ed t o pr esent exper t t est i mony about t he St atement s of

    Economi c I nt er est . Appel l ant of f er ed t he exper t t est i mony of

    Norman A. Thomas - - a pr i vat e at t orney who f ormer l y worked i n

    13  Appel l ant al so cont est s t he excl usi on of hi s pr oposed l aywi t ness t est i mony about t he r ar i t y of Wi l l i ams’ s agr eement . Att r i al , t he cour t sust ai ned t he Gover nment ’ s obj ect i on af t erdef ense counsel asked Wi l l i ams whet her he under st ood “howunusual i t i s . . . t o get t r ansact i onal i mmuni t y” and agai naf t er def ense counsel asked an FBI speci al agent whether he had“ever seen a cooper at i ng wi t ness get t he ki nd of deal t hat Mr .Wi l l i ams got . ” J . A. 2778, 5064. Appel l ant cl ai ms t hi s

    t est i mony woul d have hel ped t he j ur y assess Wi l l i ams’ scredi bi l i t y. I n r el evant par t , Rul e 701 of t he Feder al Rul es ofEvi dence r equi r es t hat opi ni on t est i mony f r om a l ay wi t ness mustbe “hel pf ul t o cl ear l y under st andi ng t he wi t ness’ s t est i mony. ”Fed. R. Evi d. 701( b) ; see al so Uni t ed St at es v. Hassan, 742 F. 3d104, 136 ( 4t h Ci r . 2014) ( “Lay opi ni on t est i mony i s par t i cul ar l yusef ul when . . . t he t er ms and concept s bei ng di scussed . . .ar e l i kel y t o be unf ami l i ar t o t he j ur y. ”) . J ur i es ar e f ami l i arwi t h t he gener al i mport and ef f ect of i mmuni t y agr eement s. Cf .Al l en, 716 F. 3d at 106 ( di scussi ng j ur or s’ abi l i t y t o under st andt he i mpl i cat i ons of a pl ea agr eement ) . Her e, t he j ur y was

    i nf or med of t he cont ent s of Wi l l i ams’ s agr eement , and Wi l l i amst est i f i ed about t he agr eement and hi s under st andi ng of t hei mmuni t i es f r om pr osecut i on i t af f or ded hi m. The j ur y di d notneed addi t i onal t est i mony r egardi ng what t ypes of agr eement s aremor e common t han ot her s t o assess Wi l l i ams’ s cr edi bi l i t y. I not her wor ds, t he di st r i ct cour t r easonabl y concl uded t hat t het est i mony woul d not have been hel pf ul .

    Appeal: 15-4019 Doc: 126 Filed: 07/10/2015 Pg: 38 of 89

  • 8/20/2019 McDonnell Fourth Circuit Opinion

    39/89

    39

    t he Of f i ce of t he At t or ney Gener al of Vi r gi ni a and ser ved as a

     j udge - - t o expl ai n t he vagueness and compl exi t y of t he

    St atement s of Economi c I nt er est . Accordi ng t o Appel l ant , Thomas

    al so woul d have expl ai ned that Appel l ant ’ s St at ement s of

    Economi c I nt er est evi denced a reasonabl e under st andi ng of t he

    di scl osur e r equi r ement s.

    Exper t t est i mony must “hel p t he t r i er of f act t o

    under st and t he evi dence or t o det er mi ne a f act i n i ssue. ” Fed.

    R. Evi d. 702( a) . “The hel pf ul ness r equi r ement of Rul e 702 t hus

    pr ohi bi t s t he use of exper t t est i mony r el at ed t o mat t er s whi ch

    ar e obvi ousl y . . . wi t hi n t he common knowl edge of j ur or s. ”

    Uni t ed St ates v. Lespi er , 725 F. 3d 437, 449 ( 4t h Ci r . 2013)

    ( al t er at i on i n or i gi nal ) ( i nt er nal quot at i ons mar ks omi t t ed) .

     The di st r i ct cour t excl uded t he t est i mony of Thomas

    because i t woul d not be hel pf ul t o t he j ur y. As the cour t

    observed, t he j ur or s wer e “capabl e of r eadi ng and assessi ng t he

    compl exi t y of t he [ St at ement s] f or t hemsel ves. ” J . A. 719.

    Gener al l y speaki ng, one does not need any speci al ski l l s or

    exper t i se t o r ecogni ze t hat somet hi ng i s compl ex. Accor di ngl y,

    t hi s mat t er was pl ai nl y wi t hi n t he common knowl edge of t he

     j uror s. Si mi l ar l y, t he j uror s di d not need exper t assi st ance t o

    assess t he r easonabl eness of Appel l ant ’ s opi ni ons about what he

    di d and di d not have t o di scl ose. The di st r i ct cour t r easonabl y

    concl uded t hat Thomas’ s t est i mony woul d not have been hel pf ul .

    Appeal: 15-4019 Doc: 126 Filed: 07/10/2015 Pg: 39 of 89

  • 8/20/2019 McDonnell Fourth Circuit Opinion

    40/89

    40

    As a r esul t , we cannot concl ude t hat t he di st r i ct cour t ’ s

    deci si on t o excl ude thi s evi dence was an abuse of di scr et i on.

    2.

    Admi ss i on of St atement s of Economi c I nt erest

    Appel l ant obj ect s t o t he admi ssi on of t he St at ement s

    of Economi c I nt er est f i l ed by Appel l ant dur i ng hi s t i me i n

    of f i ce. Appel l ant moved i n l i mi ne t o excl ude evi dence r el at i ng

    t o t he St atement s of Economi c I nt er est , argui ng t he St atement s

    of Economi c I nt er est woul d have l i t t l e t o no pr obat i ve val ue and

    t hei r admi ssi on woul d conf use the i ssues and mi sl ead t he j ur y.

     The Government , on t he ot her hand, char act er i zed t he

    St atement s of Economi c I nt er est and rel ated evi dence as

    conceal ment evi dence, whi ch woul d r eveal Appel l ant ’ s “cor r upt

    i nt ent and consci ousness of gui l t . ” J . A. 723. I n suppor t of

    t hi s proposi t i on, t he Gover nment of f er ed f our exampl es of how

    t he St at ement s of Economi c I nt erest amounted t o conceal ment

    evi dence:

    [ F] i r st , because of [ Appel l ant ’ s] del i ber at eomi ssi on of hi s gol f - r el at ed gi f t s pai d by J onni e Wi l l i ams; second, because of[ Appel l ant ’ s] del i ber at e omi ssi on of t he$15, 000 check f r om Mr . Wi l l i ams t o pay the

    r emai nder of t he cat er i ng bi l l t heMcDonnel l s owed f or t hei r daught er ’ sweddi ng; t hi r d, as t he r eason why Mr s.McDonnel l sol d and r epur chased al l St arst ock hel d i n her account on dat es f l anki ngt he due dat e f or [ Appel l ant ’ s] 2011[ St atement of Economi c I nt er est ] , and whyt he next year , she si mi l ar l y unl oaded St ar

    Appeal: 15-4019 Doc: 126 Filed: 07/10/2015 Pg: 40 of 89

  • 8/20/2019 McDonnell Fourth Circuit Opinion

    41/89

    41

    st ock to [ Appel l ant ’ s] chi l dr en on December26, 2012, such t hat l ess t han $10, 000 wort hof St ar st ock r emai ned i n her account atyear- end; and f our t h, as t he reason why[ Appel l ant ] had Mr . Wi l l i ams di r ect $70, 000i n l oan pr oceeds t o [Mobo] .

    I d. at 723–24 ( ci t at i ons omi t t ed) .

    Evi dence i s r el evant i f “i t has any t endency t o make a

    f act mor e or l ess probabl e t han i t woul d be wi t hout t he

    evi dence” and “t he f act i s of consequence i n det er mi ni ng t he

    act i on. ” Fed. R. Evi d. 401( a) –( b) . Rel evant evi dence may be

    excl uded “i f i t s pr obat i ve val ue i s subst ant i al l y out wei ghed by

    a danger of . . . unf ai r pr ej udi ce, conf usi ng t he i ssues,

    mi sl eadi ng t he j ur y, undue del ay, wast i ng t i me, or needl essl y

    pr esent i ng cumul at i ve evi dence. ” I d. 403.

     The di st r i ct cour t admi t t ed t he St at ements of Economi c

    I nterest because t hey were r el evant “t o conceal ment and may be

    pr obat i ve of i nt ent t o def r aud” and because “admi ssi on . . .

    wi l l not unf ai r l y pr ej udi ce [ Appel l ant ] because t her e i s no

    suggest i on, and t her e wi l l be none at t r i al , t hat [ Appel l ant ]

    vi ol at ed Vi r gi ni a’ s et hi cs l aws or r epor t i ng r equi r ement s. ”

     J . A. 760. I ndeed, an at t empt t o conceal act i ons may i ndi cat e an

    i ndi vi dual has a gui l t y consci ence or i s awar e of t he

    unl awf ul ness of t he act i ons. See Uni t ed St at es v. Zayyad, 741

    F. 3d 452, 463 ( 4t h Ci r . 2014) . Because t he St atement s of

    Economi c I nt er est di d not i ncl ude var i ous gi f t s, st ock

    Appeal: 15-4019 Doc: 126 Filed: 07/10/2015 Pg: 41 of 89

  • 8/20/2019 McDonnell Fourth Circuit Opinion

    42/89

    42

    t r ansact i ons, and l oans f r om Wi l l i ams t o Appel l ant - - omi ssi ons

    Appel l ant sought t o expl ai n dur i ng t r i al 14  - - t he str uctur i ng of

    t he l oans and gi f t s and f ai l ur es t o repor t coul d be seen as

    ef f or t s t o conceal Appel l ant ’ s deal i ngs wi t h Wi l l i ams. The

    di st r i ct cour t cor r ect l y obser ved as much. And t he di st r i ct

    cour t wei ghed t he pr obat i ve val ue of t hi s evi dence agai nst any

    danger s t hat woul d accompanyi ng i t s admi ssi on. Accordi ngl y, we

    cannot concl ude t hat t he di st r i ct cour t ’ s deci si on t o admi t t hi s

    evi dence was an abuse of di scr et i on.

    3.

    Admi ssi on of Ot her Gi f t s Evi dence

    Appel l ant obj ect s t o t he admi ssi on of evi dence t hat he

    accept ed a gi f t of t he Ki awah vacat i on f r om Goodwi n and t hat he

    14  Appel l ant t est i f i ed t hat he shoul d have r epor t ed - - butdi d not r epor t - - gol f out i ngs pr ovi ded by Wi l l i ams i n 2011. Hedi d not r epor t Wi l l i ams’ s $15, 000 check f or cat er i ng atAppel l ant ’ s daught er ’ s weddi ng, char act er i zi ng t he check as aweddi ng gi f t t o hi s daught er . Appel l ant i nst r uct ed Wi l l i ams towr i t e l oan checks t o Mobo, ci r cumvent i ng di scl osur er equi r ement s. I n bot h 2011 and 2012, Mr s. McDonnel l unl oadedshar es of St ar st ock pr i or t o t he f i l i ng dat es f or t heSt atement s of Economi c I nt er est so her owner shi p di d not have t obe r eport ed. But af t er t he 2011 St at ement of Economi c I nt er estwas f i l ed, Mr s. McDonnel l r epur chased shar es of St ar st ock.

    Appel l ant t est i f i ed t hat “i t was not a bi g deal ” i f he had t or epor t owner shi p of St ar st ock. J . A. 6276. He cl ai med t hat heencour aged hi s wi f e to sel l t he st ock i n 2011 because i t was ar i sky i nvest ment . He al so cl ai med t hat Mr s. McDonnel lr epur chased and agai n t r ansf er r ed St ar st ock i n 2012 because shewant ed t o gi ve t he st ock t o t hei r chi l dr en as a Chr i st maspr esent .

    Appeal: 15-4019 Doc: 126 Filed: 07/10/2015 Pg: 42 of 89

  • 8/20/2019 McDonnell Fourth Circuit Opinion

    43/89

    43

    di d not di scl ose t hi s gi f t pur suant t o t he “per sonal f r i end”

    except i on t o Vi r gi ni a’ s repor t i ng r equi r ement s. Appel l ant moved

    i n l i mi ne t o excl ude t hi s evi dence as ext r i nsi c evi dence of

    unr el at ed al l eged act s wi t h no pr obat i ve val ue of hi s i nt ent .

     The Gover nment r esponded t hat t hi s evi dence showed Appel l ant ’ s

    knowl edge of t he “per sonal f r i end” except i on t o r eport i ng

    r equi r ement s. Thi s evi dence, t he Gover nment f ur t her noted,

    woul d be “competent evi dence of absence of mi st ake or l ack of

    acci dent when i t comes t o assessi ng [ Appel l ant ’ s] i nt ent i n

    f ai l i ng t o di scl ose t he gi f t s and l oans f r om Mr . Wi l l i ams. ”

     J . A. 731.

    As a gener al r ul e, “[ e] vi dence of a cr i me, wr ong, or

    ot her act i s not admi ssi bl e t o pr ove a per son’ s char act er i n

    or der t o show t hat on a par t i cul ar occasi on t he per son act ed i n

    accor dance wi t h t he char act er . ” Fed. R. Evi d. 404( b) ( 1) .

    However , such evi dence “may be admi ss i bl e f or anot her pur pose,

    such as pr ovi ng mot i ve, oppor t uni t y, i nt ent , pr epar at i on, pl an,

    knowl edge, i dent i t y, absence of mi st ake, or l ack of acci dent . ”

    I d. 404( b) ( 2) .

     The di st r i ct cour t admi t t ed t he evi dence of t he Ki awah

    vacat i on omi ss i on because i t was used t o show knowl edge and l ack

    of mi st ake. The omi ssi on of t he gi f t f r om Goodwi n, t he di st r i ct

    cour t det er mi ned, “i s s i mi l ar t o t he act t he Gover nment seeks t o

    pr ove - - omi ssi on of gi f t s f r om Wi l l i ams pur suant t o t he

    Appeal: 15-4019 Doc: 126 Filed: 07/10/2015 Pg: 43 of 89

  • 8/20/2019 McDonnell Fourth Circuit Opinion

    44/89

    44

    per sonal f r i end except i on. ” J . A. 761. Thi s evi dence

    est abl i shed t hat Appel l ant knew about t he “per sonal f r i end”

    except i on and omi t t ed cer t ai n gi f t s pur suant t o t hi s except i on.

     Thus, Appel l ant ’ s knowl edge and t he absence of mi st ake was

    “r el evant t o, and pr obat i ve of , hi s al l eged i nt ent t o def r aud. ”

    I d. Rul e 404 per mi t s t he admi ssi on of evi dence of i nt ent and

    knowl edge, and i n our vi ew, t he di st r i ct cour t coul d concl ude

    t hat t he Goodwi n evi dence was admi ssi bl e f or t hese pur poses.

     Ther ef or e, we cannot concl ude t hat t he di st r i ct cour t ’ s deci si on

    t o admi t t hi s evi dence was an abuse of di scr et i on.

    4.

    Admi ss i on of Emai l Exchange Regardi ng Fr ee Gol f

    Appel l ant obj ect s t o t he admi ssi on of an emai l

    exchange about obt ai ni ng f r ee r ounds of gol f . On J anuar y 4,

    2013, Emi l y Rabbi t t - - Appel l ant ’ s t r avel ai de and deput y

    di r ect or of schedul i ng - - asked Adam Zubowsky f or advi ce about

    pl anni ng gol f t r i ps f or Appel l ant . Zubowsky - - once Appel l ant ’ s

    t r avel ai de and l at er Appel l ant ’ s son- i n- l aw - - r esponded i n an

    emai l dated J anuary 4, 2013:

     Yes basi cal l y t hi s means f i nd out who we

    know i n t hese ci t i es, t hat owns gol f cour sesand wi l l l et me and my f ami l y pl ay f or f r ee,or at a r educed cost . Al so f i ndi ng outwher e t o st ay f or f r ee / or r educed cost .So t hi s means . . . f i nd out about pacdonor s, and r ga donor s, who wi l l host r f m.

     J . A. 7921.

    Appeal: 15-4019 Doc: 126 Filed: 07/10/2015 Pg: 44 of 89

  • 8/20/2019 McDonnell Fourth Circuit Opinion

    45/89

    45

    Dur i ng t r i al , Appel l ant obj ect ed t o t he admi ssi on of

    t hi s emai l , asser t i ng t hat t hi s evi dence was not r el evant and

    was ext r aor di nar i l y pr ej udi ci al . I n post - t r i al mot i ons and on

    appeal , however , Appel l ant has cl ai med t he exchange was

    i nadmi ssi bl e hear say and i nadmi ssi bl e char act er evi dence.

    Because Appel l ant di d not obj ect at t r i al on t hese gr ounds, our

    r evi ew i s f or pl ai n er r or . See Uni t ed St at es v. Bennet t , 698

    F. 3d 194, 200 ( 4t h Ci r . 2012) .

    On pl ai n er r or r evi ew, an appel l ant “bear s t he bur den

    of est abl i shi ng ( 1) t hat t he di st r i ct cour t er r ed; ( 2) t hat t he

    er r or was pl ai n; and ( 3) t hat t he er r or af f ect [ ed hi s]

    subst ant i al r i ght s. ” Bennet t , 698 F. 3d at 200 ( al t er at i on i n

    or i gi nal ) ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) . An er r or af f ect s

    an i ndi vi dual ’ s subst ant i al r i ght s i f i t was pr ej udi ci al , “whi ch

    means t hat t her e must be a r easonabl e pr obabi l i t y t hat t he er r or

    af f ect ed t he out come of t he t r i al . ” Uni t ed St at es v. Mar cus,

    130 S. Ct . 2159, 2164 ( 2010) . The mer e possi bi l i t y t hat t he

    er r or af f ect ed t he out come of t he t r i al does not est abl i sh

    pr ej udi ce. See i d. “Even t hen, t hi s cour t r et ai n[ s] di scret i on

    t o deny r el i ef , and deni al i s par t i cul ar l y war r ant ed wher e i t

    woul d not r esul t i n a mi scar r i age of j ust i ce. ” Bennet t , 698

    F. 3d at 200 ( al t er at i on i n or i gi nal ) ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks

    omi t t ed) .

    Appeal: 15-4019 Doc: 126 Filed: 07/10/2015 Pg: 45 of 89