Significant Cases

Abscam was a wide-ranging anti-corruption sting operation conducted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation in the late 1970s and early 1980s.  FBI cooperator and career con-man Melvin Weinberg purported to represent wealthy Arab businessmen evaluating business opportunities in the United States. Weinberg enlisted the assistance of state and local elected leaders and private attorneys to help his clients secure assistance from federal elected officials in receiving preferential immigration treatment.  

The operation resulted in the convictions of five public officials on corruption charges, including South Carolina Congressman John Jenrette, Pennsylvania Congressmen Raymond Lederer and Michael “Ozzie” Myers, New York Congressman John Murphy, and New Jersey Congressman Frank Thompson.  The convictions of all five congressmen were affirmed on appeal.

In 2017, Joe Arpaio, the former Sheriff of Maricopa County, AZ was convicted at trial in the District of Arizona of Contempt of Court in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 401. The case arose from Arpaio’s violations of a December 23, 2011, preliminary injunction issued in civil litigation, see Melendres v. Arpaio, No. 2:07-cv-02513, ECF No. 1094 (D. Ariz. Dec. 23, 2011), prohibiting Arpaio and the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office (MCSO) from detaining undocumented immigrants on mere suspicion of unlawful presence. Arpaio willfully disregarded the Court’s directive and continued to arrest and detain immigrants despite repeated warnings that such detentions were unlawful. Arpaio then boasted about his immigration enforcement and defiance of federal authority to garner publicity and support for his 2012 re-election campaign and to further his image as “America’s Toughest Sheriff.”

The evidence at trial showed that at Arpaio’s direction, for almost a year and half after the issuance of the preliminary injunction, MCSO deputies illegally detained at least 171 people and transferred them to United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement based solely on suspicion of unlawful immigration status, in the absence of any state law violation. Arpaio also issued numerous press releases and made public statements over the same period touting his office’s immigration enforcement in the face of the preliminary injunction and federal law. In June 2012, for example, six months after the preliminary injunction issued and in the wake of the United States Supreme Court decision in Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387 (2012) striking down multiple provisions of Arizona law SB 1070 relating to state efforts to enforce immigration laws, Arpaio announced to a national tele vision audience that his office would nonetheless persist in detaining suspected illegal immigrants even where there was no state law violation: “If they’re illegal, okay, they’re going to jail. . . . we’re going to try to call ICE to take them off our hands.”

On August 25, 2017, after Arpaio was found guilty but before he was sentenced, Arpaio received a Full and Unconditional Presidential Pardon.

In 1991, Robert F. Collins, a United States District Judge in the Eastern District of Louisiana, was convicted at trial in the Eastern District of Louisiana of conspiracy to defraud the United States, bribery, and obstruction of justice.  Following his conviction, Judge Collins was sentenced to 82 months of incarceration.  Judge Collins resigned his judicial commission on August 6, 1993, after the U.S. House of Representatives began impeachment proceedings against him.

As established at trial, Judge Collins accepted a bribe in exchange for imposing a lenient sentence on drug trafficker Gary Young.  Facing a federal indictment stemming from a drug trafficking scheme, Young sought to limit his potential criminal exposure by influencing the judge before whom he might appear.  Through a business associate, Young reached out to John Ross, a friend of Judge Collins, and Ross agreed to help Young bribe Judge Collins.  Shortly thereafter, however, Young reached a plea agreement with the government and disclosed the potential bribery scheme.

Federal law enforcement, under the supervision of Charles Clark, Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, conducted a sting operation.  As recorded by the FBI, Young and Ross agreed that Young would pay $100,000 to Ross and Judge Collins in exchange for leniency at sentence.  Young began to make installment payments to Ross.  Wiretaps and other evidence confirmed that Ross discussed the case with Judge Collins, gave him significant amounts of cash, and assured Young that Judge Collins would help him.  Through Ross, Judge Collins provided guidance to Young on how to act during sentencing and what materials to file with the court in order to justify a lenient sentence.

Prior to sentencing, the U.S. Probation Office prepared a presentence investigation report and recommended a term of imprisonment of eight years for Young.  After meeting with Judge Collins, Ross shared details of the confidential report with Young and told Young that Probation’s recommendation was “cramping [Collins]’s style.”  Ross also told Young that Judge Collins could not impose a sentence of fewer than 40 months without a letter from the government attesting to Young’s cooperation.  On the same day that Ross spoke with Young, Judge Collins called Albert Winters, the Assistant United States Attorney prosecuting Young’s case, to inquire about the status of a letter attesting to Young’s cooperation, but Winters told Judge Collins that Young had not cooperated and that no letter would be forthcoming.

Two days later, Judge Collins sentenced Young to a term of imprisonment of forty-two months, less than half the length recommended by Probation.  After sentencing, Ross told Young that Judge Collins had told him that he had imposed the lowest sentence he could without raising suspicion.

Two days after Young’s sentencing, the FBI executed search warrants on Judge Collins’s chambers and Ross’s offices and safety deposit box.  The agents seized $16,000 from Judge Collins’s chambers and $70,880 from Ross’s office and safety deposit box.

On appeal, Judge Collins raised several issues, including prosecutorial misconduct, jury misconduct, due process violations, and violations of Batson v. Kentucky and Miranda v. Arizona. The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit rejected each of his arguments and affirmed his conviction.

During 1989 and 1990, the FBI’s Operation Lost Trust targeted corruption in the South Carolina Legislature. By the time the operation and resulting prosecutions were concluded, twenty-seven individuals would plead guilty or be convicted. Among those convicted were Larry Blanding, Paul Wayne Derrick, and Jefferson Marion Long Jr., each of whom was tried and convicted by trial attorneys from the Department of Justice Public Integrity Section.

In April 1989, the FBI arrested former South Carolina representative and lobbyist Ron Cobb for attempting to purchase one kilogram of cocaine. Cobb agreed to cooperate with the government. Posing as a lobbyist for fictitious business interests, Cobb solicited support from members of the General Assembly for a bill legalizing pari-mutuel betting on dog racing and horse racing. In exchange, and under video surveillance, Cobb paid these representatives thousands of dollars in cash. For example, Derrick accepted an envelope stuffed with $1,000 in exchange for his vote.

Of the twenty-seven guilty pleas or convictions that Operation Lost Trust yielded, seventeen were elected officials and one was a judge. Larry Blanding, Paul Wayne Derrick, B.J. Gordon, Jefferson Marion Long, and Luther Taylor Long, Jr. were convicted of various offenses, including extortion under color of official right and conspiracy to commit extortion, in violation of the Hobbs Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1951.

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the convictions of Blanding, Derrick, Taylor, and Gordon in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in McCormick v. United States, 500 U.S. 257 (1991) pertaining to jury instructions. Long’s conviction was overturned on an evidentiary issue. Each of the cases was slated for retrial. Before they could be retried, Luther Taylor and B.J. Gordon died.

On remand to the district court, the remaining defendants moved to dismiss their cases, alleging discovery violations and prosecutorial misconduct. The Justice Department’s Office of Professional Responsibility investigated the allegations and found no evidence of intentional wrongdoing by the prosecutors. Nevertheless, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for South Carolina recused itself and the Public Integrity Section took over the prosecutions. In February 1997, the district court sided with the defendants and dismissed with prejudice their indictments. The United States appealed. The Fourth Circuit reversed the lower court’s dismissal, explaining that, “[t]he district court's dismissal of the defendants’ indictments without a finding of prejudice is directly contrary not only to the precedent of this court, but also to clear and well-established Supreme Court precedent.” The defendants were retried and convicted in 1999.

David Durenberger was a U.S. Senator from Minnesota.  Along with his attorney Michael Mahoney and advisor Paul Overgaard, he was charged with defrauding the United States Senate. The men were alleged to have concealed Durenberger’s ownership of a Minneapolis condominium, making it appear instead that the senator was renting the unit from Overgaard’s company, Independent Services Company. Durenberger then submitted the fraudulent charges to the Senate for reimbursement. The conspirators billed the Senate for $3,825 in fraudulent lodging expenses during 1987 and 1988.

Durenberger and his co-conspirators were indicted in 1993 on the felony fraud charges. Those charges were dismissed after the district court judge found that the grand jury had been presented with evidence protected by the Speech or Debate clause of the Constitution, but Durenberger was reindicted by a grand jury in 1994. Despite initially denying the charges, Durenberger pled guilty to five misdemeanor charges in August 1995. He was sentenced to 12 months of probation and ordered to pay a fine and assessment totaling $1,025.

Durenberger retired from the Senate in 1994.

In 1979, a jury convicted Perch Hankin on four counts of violating the Federal Election Campaign Act.  The trial was held in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania.  Hankin was convicted of making four straw contributions—through four separate conduits—totaling $1,000 to then Pennsylvania Governor Milton Shapp’s 1976 presidential campaign. 

At trial, the government proved that Hankin had approached personal acquaintances of his, Harry Hilger and Dante Iacampo, in February 1976 and requested that they, along with their spouses, each make contributions in the amount of $250 to the Shapp campaign in order to help Shapp qualify for federal campaign matching funds.  After Hilger, Iacampo, and their respective spouses issued checks to the Shapp campaign for the agreed upon amounts, Hankin reimbursed them for the contributions.

Hankin appealed his conviction to the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit arguing that the three-year statute of limitations barred his prosecution.  The evidence at trial established that the four checks were dated February 4, 1976; that Hankin had reimbursed Hilger and Iacampo sometime before February 9, 1976; that Hilger and Iacampo had mailed the checks sometime after February 4, 1976 (the evidence did not establish the precise date upon which the Shapp campaign received the checks); and that the Shapp campaign negotiated the checks on February 10, 1976.  Accordingly, Hankin argued that the three-year limitations period had expired by the time the government charged him on February 9, 1979.

The key issue on appeal was whether Hankin’s illegal campaign contributions were completed within the three-year limitations period—that is, on or after February 9, 1976.  The government argued that the illegal contributions were not completed until the Shapp campaign negotiated the checks on February 10, 1976, but a split panel of the Third Circuit rejected the government’s position, holding instead that “[t]he criminal act of making the illegal contribution is complete before the deposit of the checks.”  Accordingly, because the evidence established at trial did not prove that any acts in furtherance of the crime—other than the negotiation of the checks—had occurred on or after February 9, 1976, the court held that the prosecution was barred by the statute of limitations.  As a result, Hankin’s conviction was reversed and vacated.

Samuel Kent was a United States District Judge in the Southern District of Texas.  In 2009, he was convicted of obstruction of justice after lying during an inquiry by a judicial committee investigating allegations of sexual harassment and assault.

In May 2007, Cathy McBroom, Kent's former case manager, filed a complaint against the judge with the Judicial Council of the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. According to McBroom, Kent harassed her during the period from 2003-2007 and sexually assaulted her in March 2007. The court appointed a Special Investigative Committee to investigate the allegations. Kent’s secretary Donna Wilkerson made similar accusations against Kent, including that he sexually assaulted her. At his request, Kent appeared before the Committee. He testified falsely to the Committee that the only unwanted sexual contact he made toward Wilkerson was one kiss and that he made no further sexual advances once Wilkerson told him that his advances were unwelcomed.

On August 28, 2008, a grand jury indicted Kent on two counts of abusive sexual contact and one count of attempted aggravated sexual abuse for his assault on McBroom. On January 6, 2009, the grand jury returned a superseding indictment against Kent, which added one count of abusive sexual contact and one count of aggravated sexual abuse for his assault of Wilkerson. It also added one count of obstruction of justice for his false statements to the Special Investigative Committee.

On February 23, 2009, Kent pled guilty to obstruction of justice in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(2). In exchange, the government agreed to dismiss the remaining counts of the indictment. Kent also admitted to engaging in non-consensual sexual conduct with both McBroom and Wilkerson. Calling his conduct “a stain on the justice system itself,” Judge Roger Vinson sentenced Kent to a term of imprisonment of thirty-three months and ordered him to pay fines and restitution totaling $7,550.

Although he initially sought early retirement due to disability in order to secure a judicial pension, Kent resigned his judicial commission after being impeached by the House of Representatives.

U.S. Congressman Robert Ney of Ohio pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit honest services wire and mail fraud, make false statements, and violate post-employment restrictions for former Congressional staff, as well as to making false statements in required financial disclosure forms.  Ney was sentenced to 30 months in prison, two years of supervised release, and ordered to pay a fine of $6,000.  He resigned from Congress on November 3, 2006. 

From 2000 to 2004, Ney and his coconspirators solicited and accepted bribes from lobbyists, including Jack Abramoff, in exchange for official actions taken to further the lobbyists’ and their clients’ business interests.  Ney accepted luxurious trips, including to an exclusive Scottish golf course, meals, tickets to box suites at various sporting events and concerts, and campaign contributions, among other things.  In exchange, Ney used his position to advance the interests of the lobbyists and their clients, including by inserting requested language into legislation and the Congressional record, supporting the bid of an Abramoff client for a valuable telephone infrastructure contract in the House of Representatives, and contacting government officials in an effort to influence their decisions on behalf of the lobbyists and their clients.

In addition, in 2003, Ney accepted an all-expenses-paid trip to London to meet with a foreign businessman.  During that and subsequent trips to London, Ney accepted thousands of dollars in casino chips from the businessman.  In exchange, Ney contacted the State Department on behalf of the businessman regarding securing a visa for travel to the United States and to inquire about export and border security restrictions that affected the businessman’s interests.  Upon returning to the United States from one such trip, Ney omitted thousands of dollars in gifts from his Customs Service Form 4790, Report of International Transportation of Currency or Monetary Instruments. 

To disguise the purpose and value of the luxury trips and gifts, Ney made false statements on required disclosure forms submitted to the U.S. House of Representatives.

Walter L. Nixon Jr. served as chief judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi. He was convicted on two counts of perjury stemming from his testimony to a federal grand jury that he did not intercede in a state criminal prosecution of a business associate’s son. He was acquitted of accepting an illegal gratuity from that associate and on one of the three perjury counts.

On August 4, 1980, state and local law enforcement seized an airplane smuggling marijuana from Colombia at Hattiesburg Municipal Airport in Hattiesburg, Mississippi. Among the conspirators in the trafficking was Reddit Andrew “Drew” Fairchild. An employee at the airport, Drew’s role was to provide access to the airport and refuel the airplane. Drew ultimately reached a plea agreement with Forrest County District Attorney Paul Holmes in which he agreed to plead guilty and testify against a co-conspirator in exchange for a lenient sentence of five years of probation and a $5,000 fine. Holmes ultimately continued the sentence several times before having the case “passed to file,” which an appeals court later explained ordinarily results in termination of charges.

During the course of an unrelated investigation, the FBI learned that Drew’s father, area businessman Wiley Fairchild, had arranged a sweet-heart oil investment for Judge Nixon. It investigated to determine whether the favorable treatment of Drew by Holmes was related to this investment. FBI agents and Justice Department prosecutors ultimately learned that Wiley sold Nixon royalty interests in several oil wells at a price well below their market rates. The transactions were backdated to appear as if they had occurred before Drew’s arrest. In fact, they occurred after the drug bust.

Appearing before a grand jury investigating the matter, Nixon testified that he did not discuss Drew’s criminal case with Holmes and that he “had nothing whatsoever officially or unofficially to do with the Drew Fairchild criminal case in federal court or state court . . . . I have never talked to anyone about the case.” Holmes contradicted this statement. He testified that Nixon had lobbied him on behalf of Drew and, later, in Holmes’s presence, called Wiley to discuss the case. Nixon was convicted on two counts of perjury for his false statements to the grand jury. He was acquitted on one count of perjury and one count of accepting an illegal gratuity. The district court sentenced Nixon to concurrent terms of five years imprisonment.

The Fifth Circuit Court of appeals affirmed the conviction and sentence on direct appeal. Thereafter, a district court rejected Nixon’s 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate his conviction, and the Fifth Circuit affirmed. In 1989, the House of Representatives impeached and the Senate convicted Nixon for perjury. Nixon appealed his removal to the Supreme Court, arguing that the Senate had followed a constitutionally impermissible process during his trial. The unanimous Supreme Court rejected Nixon’s claim, holding that it was a nonjusticiable political question.

Kevin A. Ring, a former congressional staffer turned lobbyist, was convicted following a jury trial of conspiracy to commit honest services fraud and to pay illegal gratuities, as well as three counts of honest services wire fraud and one count of paying a gratuity to a public official, stemming from the investigation into Jack Abramoff and his lobbying firm.  Ring was acquitted of three counts of honest services fraud.  The court sentenced Ring to 20 months in prison.

Ring, a lobbyist at Abramoff’s firm, represented a variety of clients from across the United States.  In doing so, Ring sought to advance the interests of his clients and himself by giving Members of the U.S. House of Representatives, congressional staff, and officials from the Department of Justice things of value in exchange for official actions.  Specifically, Ring and Abramoff provided government officials with expensive meals, sporting event and concert tickets, fundraising events, and even a job for a congressman’s wife, as a means of influencing, inducing, and rewarding official action undertaken at Ring’s request.  Ring often billed his clients for the cost of these items.  In exchange, Ring and Abramoff received support for favorable appropriations and grants for their clients, support for legislation sought by other clients, and opposition to gambling legislation that would have adversely affected other clients, among other actions sought by their clients. 

At Ring’s first trial, the jury failed to reach a verdict and a mistrial was declared.

Ring appealed his conviction to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.  On appeal, Ring argued that the district court improperly instructed the jury, that the government presented insufficient evidence to sustain the illegal gratuity count, and that the district court improperly admitted evidence of campaign contributions.  The D.C. Circuit rejected these arguments and affirmed Ring’s convictions.  Specifically, the D.C. Circuit refused to apply the mandates of McCormick v. United States, 500 U.S. 257 (1991), which required an explicit quid pro quo to sustain a bribery-related conviction, outside of the campaign contribution context (i.e., where the bribe offered is a campaign contribution).  The D.C. Circuit further confirmed that honest services fraud did not require an actual agreement between the briber and the public official, but rather, the offense was completed upon the offer of the bribe.

In 1993, Darrell A. Tomblin was convicted following a trial in the Western District of Texas of conspiracy to commit bribery, bribery, extortion, and use of interstate travel to facilitate bribery.  Following his conviction, Tomblin was sentenced to 51 months of incarceration.  On appeal, the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed Tomblin’s conviction on all counts except for one count of extortion, which was subsequently dismissed on remand.

Tomblin sought to buy the influence of then U.S. Senator Jacob “Chic” Hecht of Nevada to advance his business interests.  Tomblin, along with his co-conspirators, bribed a senior aide in Senator Hecht’s office in exchange for assistance with their business ventures in Grenada and access to the chairman of the Federal Home Loan Bank Board (“FHLBB”) in connection with other business interests.

Tomblin first contacted Glen Mauldin, Hecht’s administrative assistant and campaign treasurer, for help with his Grenadian business.  Mauldin introduced Tomblin to lobbyist Vincent Lachelli, who in turn helped Tomblin secure introductions to Grenadian officials.  Mauldin testified at trial that, in exchange for his assistance, Tomblin had set aside ten percent of the Grenadian ventures’ stock for Mauldin and Hecht.

Soon thereafter, Tomblin was introduced to Texas bankers Leo Ladoucer and Danny Gonzalez. Ladoucer and Gonzalez were seeking investors to bolster the liquidity of Suburban Savings Association, a savings and loan institution in which they had recently gained a controlling share, so that Suburban could continue lending.  Although Tomblin did not invest in Suburban, he suggested that Ladoucer and Gonzalez exploit his influence with Senator Hecht’s office to win forbearance from liquidity requirements from Suburban’s regulator, the FHLBB.  Ladoucer and Gonzalez also needed to curry favor with the FHLBB in order to secure approval for their application for control of Suburban.  The application was in doubt because they had acquired their controlling stake in Suburban through illegal means.  In exchange for his assistance, Tomblin demanded a $250,000 loan, $25,000 for Lachelli, a $50,000 contribution to Hecht’s campaign, and an all-expenses-paid trip for Mauldin.  Ladoucer and Gonzalez complied with each demand except the campaign contribution.

Payoff in hand, Tomblin arranged a meeting between Gonzalez and the chairman of the FHLBB, Danny Wall.  Mauldin also attended the meeting to convey the appearance of Senator Hecht’s interest in—and presumed support for—Suburban.  In spite of the meeting, the FHLBB questioned the application for change of control.

Tomblin and his co-conspirators were charged with numerous criminal counts stemming from their involvement in the bribery scheme.  Mauldin pled guilty to conspiracy to commit bribery and acknowledged illegally receiving a free trip and agreeing to accept the ten percent interest in the Grenadian business.  Lachelli similarly pled guilty to conspiracy.  Ladoucer and Gonzalez each pled guilty to several bank fraud charges and cooperated in the investigation of the bribery conspiracy.

During Tomblin’s two-week trial, the government introduced thirty-five recorded conversations involving Tomblin and called several witnesses who explained the details of the scheme.  A jury convicted Tomblin on all twenty-two counts of the indictment and he was sentenced to fifty-one months’ imprisonment, three years of supervised release, and $6,100 in restitution and assessments.

The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed Tomblin’s convictions as to each of the challenged counts except Count 3, which charged that he extorted Ladoucer and Gonzalez.  Holding that “in circumstances such as those in this case, a private person cannot be convicted of extortion under color of official right,” the Fifth Circuit vacated Tomblin’s conviction and sentence for Count 3 and remanded it to the district court.  On the government’s motion, the district court dismissed Count 3.