## Facts

- Mark Alfisi was a produce wholesaler operating at the Hunts Point Terminal Market in New York, where USDA inspectors issued reports that could affect contract price adjustments for delivered produce.
- USDA inspector William Cashin accepted money from multiple wholesalers; evidence showed Alfisi made payments to Cashin in connection with inspections involving Alfisi’s produce.
- The government argued Alfisi paid Cashin to influence inspection outcomes to obtain improperly favorable results (including downgrades), lowering Alfisi’s produce costs.
- Alfisi argued some inspections were accurate and contended he paid in a corrupt environment to ensure proper inspections rather than to procure falsified reports.
- A jury convicted Alfisi of bribery of a public official, paying an unlawful gratuity, and conspiracy to commit bribery.

## Issues

1. Whether the jury instructions adequately distinguished bribery under 18 U.S.C. § 201(b)(1)(A) (requiring corrupt quid pro quo intent) from unlawful gratuities under 18 U.S.C. § 201(c)(1)(A) (not requiring quid pro quo).
2. Whether the instructions improperly permitted a bribery conviction even if Alfisi’s payments were intended only to obtain lawful, honest official action.
3. Whether the court erred by allowing unlawful gratuities to be considered as a lesser-included offense of bribery and by declining to instruct on misdemeanor salary supplementation as an additional lesser-included offense.
4. Whether limits placed on defense counsel’s closing argument violated the Sixth Amendment right to present a defense.

## Decision

- The Second Circuit affirmed all convictions.
- The court held the instructions, read as a whole, correctly conveyed that bribery requires “corrupt” intent in the nature of a quid pro quo, while an unlawful gratuity is a payment made “for or because of” an official act.
- The court concluded the instructions did not authorize conviction based merely on payments intended to secure lawful performance; they required the jury to find corrupt intent to influence official acts.
- The court held it was not error to allow the jury to consider unlawful gratuities as a lesser-included offense of bribery on the charged theory and evidence, and the court was not required to charge salary supplementation as another lesser-included offense.
- The court found no Sixth Amendment violation because the trial judge’s interruptions and time control did not prevent the defense from presenting its theory to the jury.

## Legal Principles

- Bribery under 18 U.S.C. § 201(b) requires “corrupt” intent involving a quid pro quo: a specific intent to give something of value in exchange for an official act.
- An unlawful gratuity under 18 U.S.C. § 201(c) does not require a quid pro quo; it covers payments made “for or because of” an official act.
- Jury instructions are evaluated in context; reversal is warranted only if the charge, taken as a whole, inadequately states the law or misleads the jury as to the governing rule.
- A lesser-included offense instruction may be appropriate where the lesser offense’s elements are encompassed within the charged offense as presented to the jury, and the evidence permits the lesser finding.
- Trial courts may regulate the scope and length of summations; limits violate the Sixth Amendment only if they effectively deprive the defendant of a fair opportunity to present the defense theory.

## Conclusion

The Second Circuit upheld Alfisi’s convictions, concluding the jury was properly instructed on the statutory line between bribery’s quid pro quo requirement and unlawful gratuities, the lesser-included offense submission was permissible on this record, and the trial court’s control of summation did not impair the defense.


United States v. Alfisi, 308 F.3d 144 (2d Cir. 2002)