## Facts

- Phillip A. Hamilton served in the Virginia House of Delegates (1988–2009) and became Vice-Chair of the Appropriations Committee, with influence over state budget funding.
- While employed by a public-school system, Hamilton used his work email account and work computer to exchange emails with his wife about financial difficulties and his desire to obtain paid employment connected to a university project.
- The school system maintained an acceptable-use policy stating employees had no expectation of privacy in emails and that computer use could be monitored.
- Old Dominion University (ODU) sought state funding for a new Center for Teacher Quality and Educational Leadership.
- Hamilton advised ODU officials on strategies to obtain state funding and indicated he could submit a budget amendment if the project was not included by the governor.
- After state funding was obtained, ODU hired Hamilton in a paid role associated with the Center without a formal application process.
- The government alleged a corrupt exchange: Hamilton would use his official position to help secure funding in return for employment and salary.
- Before trial, the district court admitted the spouse-to-spouse emails over a marital communications privilege objection; a jury convicted Hamilton of federal program bribery and Hobbs Act extortion under color of official right.
- The district court applied a 14-level Sentencing Guidelines enhancement based on the value of the benefit involved.

## Issues

1. Whether spouse-to-spouse emails sent and stored on an employer’s monitored email system were protected by the marital communications privilege or whether confidentiality was waived.
2. Whether the evidence was sufficient to support convictions for federal program bribery under 18 U.S.C. § 666(a)(1)(B) and Hobbs Act extortion under color of official right under 18 U.S.C. § 1951.
3. Whether the district court erred by refusing a jury instruction on an illegal “gratuity” theory rather than a quid pro quo bribe.
4. Whether the district court plainly erred in applying a 14-level Guidelines enhancement based on the value of the benefit received or to be received.

## Decision

- The Fourth Circuit affirmed Hamilton’s convictions and sentence.
- The court held the marital communications privilege did not apply because Hamilton waived confidentiality by using a workplace email system subject to an explicit monitoring/no-privacy policy.
- The court found sufficient evidence for the jury to conclude Hamilton acted with corrupt intent and participated in a quid pro quo exchange of official acts for employment benefits, supporting both § 666 bribery and Hobbs Act extortion.
- The court upheld the refusal to give a gratuity instruction because the record supported a bribery theory and lacked a sufficient basis for a reward-for-past-acts theory.
- Reviewing the sentencing issue for plain error, the court found no reversible error in the 14-level enhancement.

## Legal Principles

- The marital communications privilege protects confidential communications between spouses, but it is waived by voluntary disclosure to a third party or by use of a medium that negates a reasonable expectation of confidentiality.
- When an employee has actual notice that an employer may monitor workplace email and that no privacy is expected, emails sent on that system are not “privately made” for marital privilege purposes.
- A quid pro quo agreement and corrupt intent for public corruption offenses may be proven through circumstantial evidence, including timing, communications, concealment language, and the sequence of official assistance and private benefits.
- A defendant is not entitled to a jury instruction unsupported by the evidence; a gratuity instruction may be refused where the proof centers on an exchange arrangement rather than a mere after-the-fact reward.
- Unpreserved sentencing objections are reviewed for plain error; reversal requires a clear error affecting substantial rights.

## Conclusion

The Fourth Circuit concluded that spouse-to-spouse emails transmitted through a monitored workplace system were not privileged due to lack of reasonable confidentiality, and it affirmed Hamilton’s bribery and extortion convictions and sentence based on sufficient evidence of a quid pro quo and no plain sentencing error.


United States v. Hamilton, 701 F.3d 404 (4th Cir. 2012)