## Facts

- The Hammonton Police Department received federal funding, including funds used to pay an additional patrol officer’s salary.
- Police officers, including the federally funded additional officer, were frequently dispatched to a local bar due to recurring criminal and disorderly activity.
- James V. DeLaurentis, a local police official and Supervisor of Detectives, had influence over liquor-license matters and assisted in liquor-law enforcement.
- Federal prosecutors alleged that DeLaurentis accepted bribes in exchange for using his influence to secure renewal of the bar’s liquor license by the town council.
- DeLaurentis was indicted on multiple counts, including two counts charging federal-program bribery under 18 U.S.C. § 666.
- Before trial, the district court dismissed the two § 666 counts, reasoning that the government’s evidence failed to show a sufficient connection between the alleged bribery and a federal interest.
- The United States appealed the pretrial dismissal under 18 U.S.C. § 3731.

## Issues

1. Whether a pretrial motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 12 may be used to decide the sufficiency of the government’s evidence, rather than the sufficiency of the indictment’s allegations.
2. Whether 18 U.S.C. § 666 requires proof that the alleged bribes directly affected federal funds or a specific federal program, and whether the alleged facts were legally insufficient to establish any required federal connection.

## Decision

- The Third Circuit reversed the district court’s pretrial dismissal of the § 666 counts and remanded for further proceedings.
- The court held that Rule 12 does not permit dismissal based on an assessment of the government’s anticipated trial proof absent a stipulated record or an exception such as an immunity determination.
- The court held that § 666 does not require proof that bribery directly involved federal funds, and that the presence and degree of any federal connection was not properly resolved against the government at the pretrial stage.

## Legal Principles

- Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 12 permits dismissal only when an indictment’s allegations fail to state an offense; it is not a mechanism for pretrial testing of evidentiary sufficiency.
- There is no criminal analogue to civil summary judgment; challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence are ordinarily addressed through trial and a motion for judgment of acquittal under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 29.
- Under 18 U.S.C. § 666, the government need not prove that federal funds were directly affected by, or used in, the bribery transaction; it is sufficient that the defendant is an agent of a covered entity receiving the statutory level of federal benefits and the bribery relates to the entity’s business meeting the statute’s value threshold.
- Where the entity receives federal funds and the alleged corrupt conduct relates to the entity’s governmental business, the existence and extent of any federal connection is generally a fact question not suited to resolution by pretrial dismissal on a contested or undeveloped record.

## Conclusion

The Third Circuit reinstated the § 666 counts, holding that the district court improperly used Rule 12 to evaluate the government’s evidence before trial and that § 666 does not require a showing that the alleged bribes directly affected federal funds.


United States v. DeLaurentis, 230 F.3d 659 (3d Cir. 2000)