## Facts

- Over roughly twelve years, attorney Patrick Frega and car dealer Jim Williams provided more than $100,000 in benefits to California Superior Court judges Dennis Adams, James Malkus, and Michael Greer, including automobiles, repairs, money orders, an apartment, club memberships, and furniture.
- The government alleged the benefits were intended to obtain favorable treatment in matters in which Frega appeared before the San Diego Superior Court.
- A federal grand jury returned a 21-count indictment charging:
  - RICO conspiracy under 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d), alleging an agreement to conduct court affairs through a pattern of racketeering acts (state-law bribery and Hobbs Act extortion).
  - Eighteen counts of mail fraud under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341, 1346, alleging deprivation of the public’s right to the honest services of judges; many mailings involved submissions to the state judicial oversight body during an investigation.
  - A substantive RICO offense under 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c) against Frega.
- At trial, defendants disputed knowledge and intent, characterizing the transfers as friendship-based gifts or denying corrupt purpose.
- The jury convicted all three defendants of RICO conspiracy and multiple mail-fraud counts, and convicted Frega of substantive RICO.
- Defendants appealed their convictions; the government cross-appealed the sentences as too low.

## Issues

1. Whether the RICO conspiracy convictions under 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d) could stand given the jury instructions governing how predicate racketeering acts related to the conspiracy charge.
2. Whether the evidence and charging allegations were sufficient to sustain Frega’s substantive RICO conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c), including state-law bribery predicates without identifying specific influenced judicial decisions.
3. Whether the honest-services mail-fraud convictions under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341, 1346 were supported by the evidence and properly instructed, where the alleged scheme involved judges’ receipt of undisclosed benefits and related mailings to a judicial oversight body.
4. Whether the indictment and trial court’s refusal of certain defense instructions improperly narrowed or misstated the elements of bribery and corrupt intent.
5. Whether the government was entitled to relief on its sentencing cross-appeal, and what resentencing was required after appellate disposition.

## Decision

- The court affirmed all mail-fraud convictions.
- The court affirmed Frega’s substantive RICO conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c).
- The court reversed all RICO conspiracy convictions under 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d) due to prejudicial instructional error concerning the jury’s consideration of predicate acts in evaluating the conspiracy charge.
- The court denied the government’s sentencing cross-appeal.
- The court remanded for resentencing in light of the reversal of the conspiracy convictions.

## Legal Principles

- A RICO conspiracy conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d) requires proof of an agreement to conduct an enterprise’s affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity; jury instructions must correctly explain how alleged predicate acts may be considered when assessing that agreement.
- Instructional error that materially misdirects the jury on the relationship between charged predicate acts and the conspiracy count can require reversal of § 1962(d) convictions.
- For bribery-based racketeering predicates, the prosecution need not always prove an explicitly identified official act as the object of each payment; a continuing course of providing valuable benefits can satisfy bribery elements if the evidence supports a finding of corrupt intent to influence official action as opportunities arise.
- Honest-services mail fraud under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341, 1346 is supported where public officials secretly accept benefits creating a conflict with their duty of honest service, and the mails are used in furtherance of concealment or implementation of the scheme, including communications with oversight authorities.
- An indictment is sufficient if it provides fair notice of the charged scheme and elements; it need not itemize each particular decision allegedly targeted where the theory is an ongoing corrupt arrangement.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit set aside the defendants’ RICO conspiracy convictions because the jury was not properly instructed on how to evaluate predicate racketeering acts for the conspiracy charge, but it upheld the honest-services mail-fraud convictions for all defendants and upheld Frega’s substantive RICO conviction; it denied the government’s sentencing challenge and remanded for resentencing based on the surviving counts.


United States v. Frega, 179 F.3d 793 (9th Cir. 1999)