United States v. White

Summary

The opinion resolves the parties’ pretrial motions in a federal bribery prosecution against a District of Columbia Councilmember charged under 18 U.S.C. § 201(b)(2). The court denies the defendant’s motions to dismiss, concluding that the indictment is not impermissibly duplicitous and adequately alleges an official act, and permits evidence of an alleged 2019 bribe under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b). The opinion also addresses the parties’ motions in limine.

Holdings

1. An indictment charging four bribery payments in one count is not impermissibly duplicitous when the payments are alleged to constitute acts in furtherance of a single, continuing bribery scheme occurring over a short period and the indictment provides adequate notice and protects against double jeopardy, sentencing uncertainty, and a nonunanimous verdict.
2. The alleged 2019 bribe was not inextricably intertwined with the charged 2024 scheme, but it was admissible under Rule 404(b) for non-propensity purposes, including relationship context, opportunity, capacity, motive, intent, and absence of mistake, and was not excluded under Rule 403 on the record presented.
3. The indictment adequately alleged an agreement to perform an official act because it alleged that White accepted a kickback in exchange for agreeing to pressure District agencies to extend grants or contracts, and exerting pressure on another official to perform an official act can itself constitute an official act.
4. The defendant may be precluded from presenting jury-nullification arguments or selective-prosecution arguments to the jury because nullification is not a permissible jury function and selective prosecution is a legal issue for the court.
5. A pretrial motion to categorically exclude an entrapment defense was premature where the defendant's ability to establish inducement might depend on testimony from the confidential source and unrecorded conversations.
6. The specified business records and forensically extracted cellphone data were self-authenticating under Federal Rule of Evidence 902, including through certifications under Rules 902(11), (13), and (14).
7. Evidence of gambling expenditures was admissible under Rule 403, at least where the defendant disputed whether he kept or spent the cash allegedly received from the confidential source, because the expenditures were probative of whether he retained and did not return the money.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the indictment improperly joined multiple bribery offenses in a single count.
2. Whether evidence of the alleged 2019 bribe was inadmissible because it was not inextricably intertwined with the charged conduct or was unfairly prejudicial under Rules 404(b) and 403.
3. Whether the indictment failed to allege an official act or agreement to perform an official act under 18 U.S.C. § 201(b)(2)(A) and McDonnell v. United States.
4. Whether the defendant could be precluded from presenting jury-nullification or selective-prosecution arguments to the jury.
5. Whether references to punishment or consequences of a guilty verdict should be excluded.
6. Whether evidence of the defendant's prior good conduct and self-serving hearsay should be excluded.
7. What limits Rule 608 imposed on cross-examination and extrinsic evidence concerning the confidential source's other criminal and civil cases.
8. Whether the defendant could be precluded before trial from presenting an entrapment defense.
9. Whether FBI interview reports could be introduced to impeach witnesses who did not write or adopt them.
10. Whether a Government case agent could remain at counsel table and whether specified business records and cellphone data were self-authenticating.
11. Whether the Government's notice of other-acts or predisposition evidence was premature or untimely.
12. Whether evidence of the defendant's gambling expenditures was inadmissible under Rules 403 or 404.

Disposition

other