## Facts

- Federal and state authorities conducted a public-corruption sting targeting Dade County, Florida circuit-court appointments of special assistant public defenders (SAPDs).
- Arthur Massey, a Florida lawyer and former SAPD, sought SAPD appointments and used a bail bondsman/private investigator to help obtain them, offering to name him as an investigator on resulting cases.
- Massey indicated that paying “a couple of thousand dollars” could secure access to Circuit Judge Alfonso C. Sepe.
- A third party delivered approximately $2,500 in cash to Judge Sepe with a request that Sepe begin appointing Massey as SAPD; Sepe accepted and began making appointments.
- Afterward, Sepe regularly charged meal and entertainment expenses to accounts associated with Massey (including a club luncheon and frequent restaurant meals), and Massey paid those bills by check or credit card.
- Evidence showed Sepe knew Massey was paying the restaurant bills; over roughly November 1989 to January 1991 Massey paid about $1,700 of Sepe’s restaurant charges while receiving about $91,400 in SAPD fees from cases assigned by Sepe.
- A similar appointment-for-payment pattern was presented involving Circuit Judge Roy T. Gelber: after initial reluctance, Gelber appointed Massey, and Massey later delivered $1,000 in cash to Gelber.
- A federal grand jury charged Massey with substantive RICO and RICO conspiracy, federal program bribery, multiple counts of mail fraud, and forfeiture.
- A jury convicted Massey of substantive RICO, RICO conspiracy, one bribery count, and twenty mail-fraud counts, and returned a $35,000 forfeiture verdict.

## Issues

1. Whether evidence was sufficient to prove federal program bribery under 18 U.S.C. § 666 without direct proof of an explicit quid pro quo agreement.
2. Whether evidence was sufficient to support substantive RICO and RICO conspiracy convictions, including the existence of an enterprise and a pattern of racketeering activity.
3. Whether evidence was sufficient to support the mail-fraud convictions based on use of the mails in connection with the appointment and payment process.
4. Whether the forfeiture judgment and sentences were supported by the verdict and the governing statutes.

## Decision

- The Eleventh Circuit affirmed Massey’s convictions and sentences.
- The court held the bribery conviction was supported by sufficient evidence; direct proof of a written or verbal agreement was not required.
- The court held the RICO and RICO conspiracy convictions were supported by sufficient evidence of an enterprise and a pattern of racketeering activity.
- The court held the mail-fraud convictions were supported by sufficient evidence that mailings occurred for the purpose of executing the fraudulent scheme.
- The court upheld the $35,000 forfeiture verdict and found no reversible sentencing error.

## Legal Principles

- In § 666 bribery prosecutions, the government need not present direct evidence of an explicit quid pro quo; a jury may infer a corrupt exchange from circumstantial evidence and the overall pattern of conduct.
- A corrupt exchange may be inferred from the timing, regularity, and relationship between things of value provided to a public official and official actions benefiting the payer.
- A RICO “enterprise” may be shown by evidence of ongoing association among participants engaged in a continuing course of conduct, and a “pattern of racketeering activity” may be established through repeated predicate acts over time.
- For mail fraud, the government must prove a scheme to defraud and that the defendant caused, or could reasonably foresee, a mailing for the purpose of executing the scheme; the mailing may be incident to an essential part of the scheme and need not itself be fraudulent.
- Criminal forfeiture may be sustained where the jury finds an amount traceable to the racketeering proceeds and the predicate convictions are affirmed.

## Conclusion

The Eleventh Circuit concluded that the evidence permitted the jury to find a bribery-based appointment scheme proved through circumstantial proof, supported related RICO and mail-fraud convictions, and justified the forfeiture and sentences entered on the verdict.


United States v. Massey, 89 F.3d 1433 (11th Cir. 1996)