## Facts

- The Metropolitan Sanitary District of Greater Chicago, a municipal corporation, solicited a sludge-hauling contract worth millions of dollars.
- The government alleged that Frederick B. Ingram arranged payments exceeding $900,000 to Robert McPartlin (Illinois legislator), Valentine Janicki (Sanitary District trustee), and others to secure the contract for Ingram Corporation.
- Franklin H. Weber and Edwin T. Bull allegedly acted as intermediaries through whom many payments were transmitted.
- William J. Benton, an Ingram Corporation vice president, was identified as an unindicted co-conspirator and testified for the prosecution.
- After a nine-week jury trial, defendants were convicted of conspiracy and multiple substantive counts under the Travel Act and wire-fraud statute; Janicki was also convicted on tax counts not contested on appeal.
- During coordinated pretrial defense activity, an investigator retained by Ingram’s attorney interviewed McPartlin with the knowledge and consent of McPartlin’s counsel; Ingram later sought to introduce McPartlin’s statements as exculpatory to Ingram, and McPartlin asserted privilege to exclude them.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying severance and trying the defendants jointly in a conspiracy-based prosecution.
2. Whether McPartlin’s statements to an investigator retained by a co-defendant’s counsel, made during cooperative defense efforts with both attorneys’ consent, were protected by attorney–client or joint-defense/common-interest privilege against use by the co-defendant.
3. Whether the government violated Brady by delaying disclosure of favorable information until the beginning of trial.
4. Whether challenged evidentiary rulings (including admission of co-conspirator statements) and jury instructions, individually or cumulatively, denied a fair trial.
5. Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the conspiracy, Travel Act, and wire-fraud convictions.

## Decision

- The Seventh Circuit affirmed the convictions on all appealed grounds.
- The district court acted within its discretion in denying severance; any risk of spillover prejudice was mitigated by instructions, and selective acquittals showed the jury could separate evidence by defendant.
- McPartlin’s interview statements were properly excluded as privileged because they were made with counsel’s participation and consent in the course of coordinated defense investigation; a co-defendant could not introduce them over McPartlin’s objection.
- The timing of disclosure of favorable information did not constitute a Brady violation because defendants had a meaningful opportunity to use the material and failed to show a likely effect on the verdict.
- Admission of co-conspirator statements was upheld where independent evidence supported the existence of the conspiracy and each defendant’s participation, and the trial court had discretion over the order of proof.
- The instructions, read as a whole, adequately stated the law, and the record permitted a rational jury to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

## Legal Principles

- Severance under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 14 is warranted only upon a strong showing that a joint trial compromises a specific trial right or prevents a reliable determination of guilt; conspiracy defendants are ordinarily tried together.
- Attorney–client privilege (including within a joint-defense/common-interest arrangement) can protect a represented defendant’s statements made during cooperative defense investigation, even when communicated to an investigator retained by a co-defendant’s counsel, if made with the defendant’s counsel’s knowledge and consent.
- A co-defendant may not introduce another defendant’s privileged defense communications over the privilege holder’s objection merely because the statements are exculpatory to the offering defendant.
- Brady requires disclosure of favorable material in time for meaningful use; delayed disclosure is not reversible absent prejudice sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.
- Co-conspirator statements are admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)(E) when the government establishes, by independent evidence, the conspiracy and the declarant’s and defendant’s participation; the trial court may admit conditionally subject to later connection.
- Sufficiency review asks whether, viewing the evidence in the government’s favor, a rational jury could find each element beyond a reasonable doubt.

## Conclusion

The Seventh Circuit upheld convictions arising from a public-contract bribery scheme, finding no reversible error in the joint trial, disclosure practices, evidentiary rulings, or instructions, and holding that a defendant’s interview statements made during coordinated defense efforts remained privileged against use by a co-defendant at trial.


United States v. McPartlin, 595 F.2d 1321 (7th Cir. 1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 833 (1979)