The Second Circuit Overturns Watershed Conviction Of Sheldon Silvery Based On Recent Supreme Court Decision

by Shearman & Sterling LLP
Contact

On July 13, 2017, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit overturned the high-profile, political corruption conviction of one of the most powerful politicians in New York State— former Speaker of the New York State Assembly, Sheldon Silver. United States v. Silver, 2017 WL 2978386, at *17 (2d Cir. July 13, 2017).  The Second Circuit grounded its decision on erroneous jury instructions, which it believed tainted all counts of conviction.  Though the instructions were consistent with Second Circuit law at the time they were provided to the jury, the Second Circuit held that they did not comport with the Supreme Court’s recent interpretation of what constitutes an “official act” for purposes of the “honest services fraud” and extortion statutes, as set forth in McDonnell v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2355 (2016).  The Court further held that this error was not harmless, and vacated all counts of Silver’s conviction.

By way of background, a Grand Jury indicted Silver on four counts of honest services fraud, two counts of extortion, and one count of money laundering.  The charges relate to two general schemes. First, the government alleged that Silver performed favors for a doctor in exchange for the doctor’s referral of mesothelioma patients to Silver’s law firm.  Second, the government further alleged that Silver separately performed favors for two real estate developers who, in return, hired at Silver’s request a law firm that paid referral fees to Silver.  Silver allegedly collected nearly $4 million in connection with these schemes.

To prevail on the honest services fraud and extortion counts, the Government needed to establish beyond a reasonable doubt the existence of a quid pro quo agreement — i.e. that the defendant received, or intended to receive, something of value in exchange for “an official act.” At trial, Silver and the Government proposed different jury instructions regarding what constituted an “official act.”  Silver requested a narrow definition, which tracked the federal bribery statute and basically applied to decisions or actions on any “question, matter, cause, suit, proceeding, or controversy.”  Silver, 2017 WL 2978386, at *7; see 18 U.S.C. § 201(a)(3). The government sought a broader definition, which defined an “official act” to be “any act taken under color of official authority.” Silver, 2017 WL 2978386, at *7.  The District Court ultimately adopted the government’s language, to which Silver preserved his objection.  The jury found Silver guilty on all counts, and Judge Caproni sentenced him to twelve years’ imprisonment.  In addition, Judge Caproni imposed a fine of $1.75 million, and ordered Silver to forfeit $5.4 million.

On appeal, Silver raised a number of claims, including that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his conviction and that the jury instructions were erroneous.  The Circuit easily rejected the former ground, finding ample evidence to support the jury’s verdict.  On the latter ground, the Circuit devoted the bulk of its opinion to reviewing the Supreme Court’s recent decision in McDonnell, and whether that decision rendered the jury instructions in Silver’s case to be infirm. 

In McDonnell, the Court narrowed the interpretation of an “official act” for purposes of “honest services” fraud and extortion statutes.  Specifically, the Court held that such an act “is a decision or action on a ‘question, matter, cause, suit, proceeding, or controversy.’”  McDonnell, 136 S. Ct. at 2371.  The Supreme Court went on to make clear that to satisfy this definition, the Government must establish both that: (1) the “‘question, matter, cause, suit, proceeding or controversy’ must involve a formal exercise of power that is similar in nature to a lawsuit before a court, a determination before an agency, or a hearing before a committee”; and (2) that “the public official must make a decision or take an action on that ‘question, matter, cause, suit, proceeding, or controversy,’ or agreed to do so.” Id. at 2372 (quoting 18 U.S.C. § 201(a)(3)).

Given that Silver preserved his objection, the Circuit reviewed the jury charge de novo and applied a “harmless error” standard

The Circuit first found that the instructions were erroneous, since they “captured lawful conduct, such as arranging meetings or hosting events with constituents.”  The Circuit elaborated that “an official action must be a decision or action on a matter involving the formal exercise of government power akin to a lawsuit, hearing, or agency determination,” and that the instructions in Silver did not contain such limitations.  In so holding, however, the Circuit noted that the instructions “were consistent with our precedent at the time” and did “not ascribe fault to the District Court or to the Government.” Silver, 2017 WL 2978386, at *13.

The Circuit then held that this error was not “harmless,” as the Circuit could not conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that a rational jury would have found Silver guilty had it been properly instructed.  The Circuit emphasized that while the Government did present evidence of acts that would be deemed “official” post-McDonnell, the jury very well may have convicted Silver on the basis of acts that were not “official.”  Because the Circuit harbored doubts on those points, it vacated all counts of conviction. 

The Second Circuit’s reversal is no doubt a setback for the Government in its highly-publicized efforts at combatting perceived corruption by elected officials — a campaign that is no longer focused on politicians, but has expanded to include businessmen and corporations as targets and subjects of investigations.  McDonnell — and now Silver — will necessarily temper these sprawling investigations and prosecutions, especially where there is limited evidence of what the courts have defined to be “official actions.”  Indeed, Government officials have alluded to this reality in recent statements relating to their decision not to pursue certain charges. 

That said, the Government has indicated its desire to re-try Silver for these counts, and the Circuit emphasized the sufficiency the evidence it presented in the first trial.  This will serve as a good test to see whether the Government can sustain its burden, with the new guidelines provided in McDonnell.

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Shearman & Sterling LLP | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Shearman & Sterling LLP
Contact
more
less

Shearman & Sterling LLP on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):
hide

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

Information Collection and Use by JD Supra

JD Supra collects users' names, companies, titles, e-mail address and industry. JD Supra also tracks the pages that users visit, logs IP addresses and aggregates non-personally identifiable user data and browser type. This data is gathered using cookies and other technologies.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.

Security

JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at info@jdsupra.com. In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at: info@jdsupra.com.

- hide
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.