# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls

For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 6- 38 61

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e

v.

Je ss e R. Ben to n

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 6- 38 62

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e

v.

Jo hn Fred eri ck Tate , als o k no wn as Jo hn M. Tate

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 6- 38 64

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le ev.

Dim it rio s N. Kes ari , als o k no wn as Dim it ri Ke sa ri

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

__ __ __ __ __ __

App eal s fr om

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t

fo r th e So ut he rn Dis tri ct of I owa - Des M oi ne s

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: Apri l 6 , 20 17

Fil ed : M ay

11 , 20 18

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re WOL LMAN an d LOKEN, Circ ui t J ud ge s, an d NELSON, Dis tri ct Ju dg e. 1

__ __ __ __ __ __

W OLLMAN, Circ ui t J ud ge

.

Je ss e R. Ben to n, Jo hn Fred eri ck Tate

, an d Dim it rio s N. Kes ari (Defe nd an ts )

were co nv ic te d by a jury of cau si ng fal se reco rd s, in vi ol at io n of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2 an d

15 19 (Co un t 2) ; c a u s i ng fal se cam pa ig n ex pe nd it ur e rep or ts

, in vi ol at io n of th e

Fed eral Elec ti on Cam

pa ig n Act (t he Act)

, 52 U.S.C. §§ 30 10 4( a)(1 ), (b )(5 )(A), and

30 10 9( d) (1 )(A)(i ) an d 18 U.S.C. § 2 (Co un t 3) ; e n g a g i n g in a fal se st at em en ts

sc he m e, in vi ol at io n o f 18 U.S.C. § § 2 an d 10 01 (a)( 1) (Co un t 4 ); a nd co ns pi rin g t o

c o mm it th e of

fen se s li st ed ab ov e, in vi ol at io n of 18 U.S.C. § 37 1 (Co un t 1 )

.

Defen da nt s ap pe al

, arg ui ng th at th e d is tri ct co ur t erre d i n d en y in g t he ir m ot io ns to 2

The Hon or ab le Su sa n Ri ch ard Nels on

, Uni te d St at es Dis tri c t Ju dg e fo r th e 1

Dis tri ct of M in ne so ta , si tt in g b y de si gn at io n.

The Hon or ab le Jo hn A. Ja rv ey

, Ch ie f Ju dg e, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Co ur t fo r 2

th e So ut he rn Dis tri ct of I owa

.

-2

-di sm is s, fo r jud gm en t of acq ui tt al

, an d fo r a ne w t r ia l; in in st ru ct in g th e jury; in

is su in g cert ai n ev id en ti ary ru li ng s; in de nyin g Tate ’s m ot io n fo r se ve r a n ce; an d in

is su in g a di sc ov ery ru li ng . W e aff irm.

I. Back gr ou nd

Defen da nt s were of

fic ia ls w ith Ro n Pa

ul’ s 2012 pr es ide ntial cam pa ig n. Ben to n

se rv ed as cam

pa ig n ch ai rm an

, Tate se rv ed as cam pa ig n m an ag er, an d Kes ari se rv ed

as de pu ty cam

pa ig n m an ag er. Dur in g th e pr im ary cam pa ig n fo r th e Rep ub li can Part y

no m in at io n, Defen da nt s so ug ht th e en do rs e men t of Io wa St at e Sen at or Ken t

So ren so n, who ha d pr ev io us l y e n d o rs ed riv al Rep ub li can can di da te Mi ch el le

Bac hm an n an d was em

pl oye d as Bac hm an n’s Io wa cam pa ig n ch ai rm an

, in whi ch

cap aci ty he wor ke d s ev en ty to ei gh ty hou rs a week an d was pa id $7 ,50 0 a m on th

.

On Octo be r 29

, 20 11

, Aaro n Dorr, t he bro th er of Soren so n’s leg is la ti ve ai de

,

Ch ris Dor r, em ai le d Tate a pr op os al

, w h ic h st at ed th at So ren so n wou ld ne ed to be

pa id a sa la ry of $8 ,00 0 a m on th to en do rs e Pau l, Ch ris Dor r wou ld ne ed to be pa id a

sa la ry of $5 ,00 0 a m on th

, an d a $1 00

, 0 0 0 d o n a t i o n wou ld ne ed to be m ad e to a

po li ti cal act io n co m

m it te e es ta bl is he d by So ren so n. Tate sh ared th e pr op os al wit h

Ben to n, am on g ot he rs

, de sc rib in g it as “ in su lt in g,” “ of fen si ve ,” an d “ un et hi cal ,” an d

st at in g th at th e Pau l cam pa ig n co ul d m ak e a co un te r-p ro po sa l, si m pl y r e f u s e th e

pr op os al

, or co m

m un ic at e th e pr op os al to th e pr es s, whi ch he be li ev ed “ wou ld

de st ro y th e Bac hm an [n ] cam pa ig n, Ken t, an d po ss ib ly Aaro n.” In rep ly, Ben to n se nt

an em ai l on Octo be r 31 ad dr es se d to So ren so n an d Aaro n an d Ch ris Dor r, st at in g th at

al th ou gh he was pl eas ed t h a t S or en so n was co ns id eri ng su pp or ti ng Pau l, he was

su rp ris ed by th e pr op os al be cau se it ap pe ared to be “ tryin g to se ll Ken t’s en do rs em en t

fo r hu nd red s of th ou sa nd s of d o l l a r s a nd ot he r in -k in d su pp or t fo r fu tu re po li ti cal

ve nt ur es ,” whi ch “ wou ld be un et hi cal an d il le ga l.” Ben to n fu rth er st at ed th at th e Pau l

cam pa ig n “ wou l d be ha pp y to em pl oy [So ren so n] at fai r m ark et va lu e,” whi ch th e

Bac hm an n cam

pa ig n ha d se t at $8 ,00 0 a m on th fo r So ren so n an d $5 ,00 0 a m on th fo r

-3

-Ch ris Dor r, an d th at So ren so n sh ou ld res po nd to th is of fer by Nov em

be r 2. Late r th e

sa m e da y

, Kes ari to ld Tate in an em ai l th at he an d So ren so n ha d arra ng ed to m eet fo r

di nn er th e fo ll owi ng week

. Tate res po nd ed by sa y in g th at Kes ari sh ou ld no t “ fir m up

an y th in g yet.”

Aaro n Dorr resp on de d to Ben to n’s co un te r-o ffer on Nov em be r 2, st at in g th at

he al on e was res po ns ib le fo r th e earl ie r pr op os al an d th at So ren so n was un aware of

it s de ta il s. He al so st at ed th at So ren so n wou ld be un ab le t o co ns id er Ben to n’s

co un te r-o ffer un ti l aft er Nov em be r 8. Ben to n rep li ed th at th e of fer fo r So ren so n an d

Ch ris Dor r to joi n th e Pau l cam pa ig n rem a i ne d op en bu t th at it wou ld req ui re a

res po ns e b y

Nov em be r 7.

On N o v e mber 13

, Ben to n em ai le d Tate an d Kes ari th at he was co ns id eri ng

te ll in g t h e p res s ab ou t So ren so n’s en do rs em en t pr op os al in li gh t of a “ ch eap sh ot ”

fro m Bac hm an n to ward Pau l. Tate rep li ed th at Ben to n sh ou ld fir st co nt act Aaro n

Dor r reg ard in g th e po ss ib il it y of So ren so n’s en do rs em en t. Kes ari su gg es te d th at he

co ul d m eet wit h So ren so n an d So ren so n’s wife

, b u t Ta t e st at ed th at Ben to n sh ou ld

co nt act Aaro n Dor r in st ead

, whi ch Ben to n ag reed to do th at ni gh t. On Nov em be r 15

,

aft er Dor r ha d fai le d to res po nd

, Ben to n ga ve Kes ari pe r mi s s i o n t o m eet wit h

So ren so n an d So ren so n’s wife

. Tate to ld Kes ari

, “ Mak e su re y ou ta lk to Je ss e ab ou t

ho w we wan t to do t h i s a n d wha t y ou are su pp os ed to sa y

. W e ne ed to be ve ry

care fu l.” Kes ari ag reed to do so

.

On Nov em

be r 21

, Kes ari em ai le d Tate an d Ben to n th at he ha d sp ok e n wit h

So ren so n an d hi s fam il y ov er di nn er th e pr ev io us ev en in g an d le arn ed th at So ren so n

wan te d to de fect to th e Pau l ca m pa ig n b ut in a way

th at wou ld cau se th e le as t h arm

to Bac hm an n. Tate rep li ed

, “ Seem s to m e, ne xt st ep is to m ak e hi m a n o f f e r (in

pe rs on

, no t in writ in g) an d gi ve hi m a fir m bu t po li te de ad li ne

. In m y vi ew we wou ld

wan t it to oc cu r a f

t e r Ch ris tm as

, a few da y s be fo re Cau cu s.” On Decem be r 23

,

-4

-Ben to n se nt an e mai l to Tate an d ot he rs st at in g, “ So ren so n is en do rs in g [Pau l] on

Mo nd ay . W e h av e h is st at em en t al read y .”

So ren so n req ue st ed a m eet in g wit h Kes ari on Decem be r 26

. Kes ari

, So ren so n,

an d Sore ns on ’s wife m et at a res ta ur an t to di sc us s Sore ns on ’s en do rs em en t of Paul

.

In So ren so n’s ab se nc e, Kes ari g av e So ren so n’s wife a $2 5,0 00 ch eck m ad e ou t to

Gras sr oo ts St rat e g y, a c o rp or at io n own ed by So ren so n. Afte r th e m eet in g, Kes ari

se nt an em ai l to c a mp a ig n st affe rs sa y in g, “ The de al is do ne

. Pl eas e dr aft a pr es s

rel eas e an d se nd to m e an d Je ss e.” Att ach ed to th e em ai l was So ren so n’s dr aft

st at em en t en do rs in g P au l.

On Decem

be r 27

, ho wev er, Kes ari se nt an em ai l to Tate

, B e n t on

, an d ot he rs

sa y in g, “ Hol d th e rel eas e. Ken t is ge tt in g co l d f e e t. He wan ts to m eet wit h m e in

ab ou t 2 ho ur s. A n y a d v i c e ? D a mn I was afra id of th is .” Tate as ke d, “ W hy is he

ge tt in g co ld feet ? W ha t can we do

, sa y to he lp hi m ? W ha t ti m e are y ou m eet in g hi m

,

an d whe re? ” Ben to n rep li ed

, “ I am no t in te res te d in th is ga m e an y m or e. Dim it ri,

pu ll th e of

fer. If we can ’t de pe nd on hi m

, I do n’t wan t hi m in vo lv ed .” Ben to n th en

se nt an ot he r em ai l, sa y in g, “ In al l se rio us ne ss

, I am [n ot ] su re wha t to do ab ou t th is

.

The DMR [ Des Moi ne s Regi st er ] ha s hi s st at em en t, I se nt la st ni gh t si nc e Ken t sa id

[h e] [was ] [c]om fo rta bl e.” Ben to n to ld Tate an d Kes ari in su bs eq ue nt em ai ls th at he

was co ns id eri ng te ll in g th e pr es s abo ut So ren so n’s requ es t for paym en t if Soren so n

di d n ot up ho ld hi s ag reem en t t o e nd or se Pau l.

Acco rd in g to So ren so n, he ha d a he at ed arg um en t wit h Bac hm an n’s cam pa ig n

st aff on Decem

be r 28

. Late r th at da y , h e dr ov e to a ral ly fo r P a u l at th e Io wa St at e

Fai rg ro un ds in Des Mo in es

. So ren so n m et Kes ari in th e pa rk i n g l o t an d as ke d if

Kes ari

, Ben to n, an d Tate were st il l “ on bo ard ” wit h hi s en do rs em en t of Pau l; Kes ari

rep li ed th at th ey were. So ren so n sp ok e wit h Ben to n an d Kes ari in th e ba ck st ag e area

of on e of th e bu il di ng s at th e Fai r gr ou nd s, whe re Tate was al so pr es en t. So ren so n

te st ifi ed th at Ben to n to ld hi m so m et hi ng to th e effe ct of

, “ [Y]ou bl ed fo r us

, we’ll

-5

-ta ke care of y ou ,” whi ch So ren so n un de rs to od to m ean th at he wou ld be “ fin an ci al ly

ta ke n care of an d po li ti cal ly t ak en care of .” So ren s o n t h e r e a fte r wen t on st ag e an d

pu bl ic ly en do rs ed Pau l. Sh or tl y aft er So ren so n’s en do rs em en t, Kes ari se nt an em ai l

to Fern an do Co rte s, t he Pau l cam pa ig n’s as si st an t co nt ro ll er, req ue st in g a $2 5,0 00

wire tra ns fer fo r th e ne xt m or ni ng

. Co pi es of th e em ai l were se nt to Ben to n an d Tate

an d st at ed th at Ben to n ha d ap pr ov ed th e wire

. Tate rep li ed th e fo ll owi ng da y th at th e

wire was ap pr ov ed

. The Pau l cam pa ig n is su ed a pr es s rel eas e an no un ci ng So ren so n’s

en do rs em en t.

Afte r So ren so n en do rs ed Pau l, m em be rs of th e Bac hm an n cam pa ig n b e g an

te ll in g th e pr es s t h a t t h e Pau l cam pa ig n ha d pa id So ren so n fo r hi s en do rs em en t.

Res po nd in g to m ed ia in qu iri es

, Ben to n st at ed th at So ren so n wou ld no t be pa id by th e

Pau l cam pa ig n, in on e in st an ce ex pl ic it ly de n yi n g th at So ren so n wou ld be pa id a

sa la ry by th e cam

pa ig n. Tate se nt an em ai l to Ben to n, sa y in g, “ W e ne ed to m ak e su re

an y on e as ke d a bo ut th is

. . . is pre pa red to say the same thi ng

. I wou ld as su m e th at

is s o met h i n g li ke : The Ro n Pau l cam pa ig n ha s no t an d is no t pa y in g Ken t fo r hi s

en do rs em en t. Ken t de ci de d to en do rs e Ro n be cau se bl ah bl ah bl ah

. Sh or t swe et an d

tru th fu l.”

On Decem

be r 29

, th e Pau l c a m

pa ig n is su ed a pr es s rel eas e th at in cl ud ed a

st at em en t fro m So ren so n th at he “ was ne ve r of fere d m on ey fro m th e Ro n Pau l

cam pa ig n or an y on e as so ci at ed wit h th em an d cert ai nl y wou ld ne ve r a ccep t an y .”

The st at em en t fu rth er st at ed

, “ Fi na nc ia l rep or ts c om e ou t in jus t da y s whi ch wil l

pr ov e wha t I’m sa y in g is tru e.” Ben to n ha d ap pr ov ed th is rel eas e be fo re it was m ad e

pu bl ic . In tel ev is io n i nt erv ie ws, So ren so n a ls o d en ie d b ei ng pa id by the cam pa ig n.

He ha d be en ur ge d by Kes ari to su pp or t th is de ni al by refe rri ng to th e fo rth co m in g

fin an ci al rep or ts an d was to ld by Kes ari no t to cas h th e $2 5,0 00 ch eck th at Kes ari ha d

gi v e n t o S or en so n’s wife

. Als o on Decem be r 29

, Co rte s se nt an em ai l to Kes ari

,

Ben to n, an d Tate

, wit h th e su bjec t li ne “ 25 k wire ,” as ki ng “ Is th is in vo ic e st il l on fo r

to da y ? Pl eas e se nd whe n y ou ge t.” Ben to n to ld Co rte s to “ [h ]old fo r a co up le da y s.”

-6

-Tate ag reed th at th e wire sh ou ld be he ld

, an d Kes ari st at ed

, “ W e are ho ld in g ti ll aft er

th e fil in g.” Kes ari al so ex pl ai ne d th at he di d no t wan t th e wire “ sh owi ng up on th is

qu art er fil in gs .” Late r th at da y

, Co rte s se nt Tate a li st of ou ts ta nd in g in vo ic es

, whi ch

in cl ud ed “ $2 5k

- Dim it ri’s m y st ery wire .” Tate res po nd ed

, “ Tha nk s. The re wil l no t

be th e 2 5k di m it ri wi re fo r no w. W ip e it off th e b oo ks .”

K e s a r i t he n arra ng ed to pa y So ren so n th ro ug h a th ird pa rty. He as ke d hi s

br ot he r, Pav lo Kes ari , if Pa vl o c ou ld pa y , vi a Pav lo ’s vi de o p ro du ct io n co m pa ny, a

gr ap hi c d es ig ne r who ha d do ne wor k for th e cam pa ig n. Pav lo rep li ed th at he co ul d

no t do so

, bu t refe rred Kes ari to hi s f r i e n d So nn y Izo n, who own ed a vi de o

pr od uc ti on co m

pa ny cal le d In te ract iv e Co m m un ic at io ns Tech no l o g y (ICT). On

Ja nu ary 24

, 20 12

, So ren so n se nt Kes ari an in vo ic e ad dr es se d to ICT fro m Gras sr oo ts

St rat eg y In c., th e c o rp or at io n own ed by So ren so n, fo r “ Co ns ul ti ng Serv ic es ,”

co ns is ti ng of $2 5,0 00 fo r “ Ret ai ne r to pr ov id e se rv ic es ” an d $8 ,00 0 fo r se rv ic es

pr ov id ed du rin g th e m on th of Ja nu ary 20 12

. Kes ari se nt th e in vo ic e to Pav lo

, sa y in g,

“ Here is th e in vo ic e th at ne ed s to be ta ke n care of

. Sen d m e an in vo ic e fo r vi de o

se rv ic es .” Pav lo fo rward ed th e in vo ic e to Izo n an d ad de d a $3 ,12 5 in vo ic e fo r au di o

eq ui pm en t th at Pav lo ha d ren te d t o t h e P au l cam pa ig n. On Feb ru ary 5, Izo n se nt

Kes ari an in vo ic e ch arg in g t he Pau l ca m pa ig n $ 38 ,12 5 fo r “ Pro du ct io n S erv ic es .”

Afte r rece iv in g th e Feb ru ary 5 in vo ic e, Kes ari se nt Tate an em ai l as ki ng “ [d ]id

jess e ge t ke nt pa id ? ” Tate rep li ed

, “ No id ea. Ask hi m .” Kes ari th en em ai le d Ben to n,

as ki ng “ Did y ou ge t ke nt pa id ? Or sh ou ld I su bm it th e p a ym e n t an d pa y hi m ? ”

Ben to n rep li ed

, “ Yo[ u] ha nd le

. ” Kes ari fo rward ed th e in vo ic e to Co rte s, sa y in g

“ Pl eas e wire to m or ro w m or ni ng [.] Thi s is ap pr ov ed by je ss e.” On Mar ch 21 , I zo n

se nt Kes ari an in vo ic e ch arg in g th e Pau l cam pa ig n $8 ,85 0 fo r pr od uc ti on se rv ic es

ren de red in Feb ru ary. Kes ari fo rward ed th e in vo ic e to Co rte s, sa y in g th at it was

“ [a]pp ro ve d b y

jess e.” Co rte s fo rward ed th e in vo ic e to Tate , ask in g i f th e p ay m en t

was ap pr ov ed

, wit h Tate res po nd in g th at it was

. The sa m e ex ch an ge to ok pl ace

reg ard in g th e in vo ic e fo r se rv ic es in Mar ch

. Afte r rece iv in g th e in vo ic e fo r se rv ic es

-7

-in Apr il

, Kes ari fo rward ed it to Ben to n, as ki ng “ Ken t’s bi ll [.] P a y? ” Kes ari th en

fo rward ed th e in vo ic e t o C o r t e s

, sa y in g th at it was “ [a]pp ro ve d by Je ss e.” Afte r

rece iv in g th e May in vo ic e, Kes ari fo rward ed it to Co rte s, sa y in g, “ Thi s sh ou ld be th e

la st on e.” Co rte s fo rward ed th e in vo ic e to Tate

, as ki ng “ [A]ppr ov ed ? Dim it ri sa id it

is th e la st on e.” Tate ap pr ov ed th e pa y m en t. Afte r rece iv in g th e Ju ne in vo ic e, Kes ari

fo rward ed it to Co rte s, s ay in g, “ Thi s i s t he las t on e.” Co rte s fo rward ed th e in vo ic e

to Tate

, sa y in g, “ Acco rd in g to di m it ri [th is is ] th e la st on e (ag ai n) [.] App ro ve d? 8k .”

Tate to ld Co rte s, “ I wil l fin d ou t wha t it is .” Tate em ai le d Kesar i, ask in g, “ W ha t is

th is ? W ha t is it fo r, who is it ? W hy do we ke ep pa y in g th em ? The la st pa y m en t was

su pp os ed ly the la st .” Kes ari rep li ed , “ Thi s [is ] th e la st pa y m en t fo r ke nt So ren so n.

The de al jess e ag reed to wit h ke nt .” Kes ari se nt Tate an ot he r em ai l, sa y in g, “ I[t ] was

fo r 6 m on th s.” Tat e th en ap pr ov ed th e p ay m en t.

So ren so n te st ifi ed th at he pe rf or m ed so m e se rv ic es fo r th e Pau l cam pa ig n whi le

be in g pa id by i t. He po se d fo r ph ot og rap hs , m ad e two tel ev is io n ap pe aran ces , s en t

em ai ls , a nd reco rd ed a p h on e cal l on be ha lf of th e cam pa ig n. He tra ve le d to So ut h

Caro li na an d ap pe ared at ral li es in su pp or t of Pau l, al th ou gh he di d no t or ga ni ze th es e

ral li es , as h e ha d do ne whi le work in g fo r th e Bac hm an n c am pa ig n. Whil e in So ut h

Caro li na he als o m et wit h s ta te leg is la to rs an d e nc ou rag ed th em to en do rs e Pau l.

Bas ed on th e in vo ic es

, Co rte s an d ot he r c a mp ai gn st aff pr ep ared wire

in st ru ct io ns fo r th e pa y m en ts to ICT, us in g a co de de si gn at in g th e p a ym e n ts as

“ au di o/ vi su al ex pe ns es .” The cam pa ig n us ed th is in fo rm at io n to rep or t th e pa y m en ts

to th e Fed eral Elec ti on Co m m is si on (th e Co m

m is si on ). The cam

pa ig n rep or te d th e

pa y m en ts to ICT to t h e C o mm is si on as “ au di o/ vi su al ex pe ns es ,” us in g th e co de

as si gn ed by Cort es

.

In res po ns e to m ed ia rep or ts reg ard in g th e $2 5,0 00 ch eck th at Kes ari ha d gi ve n

to So ren so n’s wife

, So ren so n se nt Kes ari a dr aft pr es s rel eas e in Aug us t 20 13

, whi ch

st at ed th at he ha d be en of fere d th e ch eck bu t ne ve r cas he d it an d th us he “ was ne ve r

-8

-pa id .” Kes ari to ld So ren so n to ho ld th e rel eas e un ti l afte r Kes ari ha d retu rn ed fro m

a tri p ab ro ad

. Upo n arri vi ng in Toro nt o, Kes ari pl aced ph on e cal ls to So ren so n, Tate

,

an d Ben to n. He pl aced se ve ral m or e ph on e cal ls to So ren so n, Tate

, an d Ben to n aft er

ret ur ni ng to Virg in ia

. Kes ari tra ve le d to m eet wit h So ren so n at hi s ho m e. So ren so n

te st ifi ed th at up on arri vi ng

, Kes ari li f t e d up hi s sh irt an d as ke d So ren so n to do th e

sa m e, to pro ve th at ne it he r was weari ng a wire . Kesar i as ke d S or en so n t o g iv e h im

th e ch eck ba ck or to al te r it to sh ow ei th er a sm al le r am ou nt or to sh ow “ Loa n” as th e

ch eck ’s pu rp os e. So ren so n re fu se d t he se req ue st s.

De f e n d a nt s were in di ct ed by a fed eral gr an d jury on Co un ts 1 th ro ug h 4 as

de sc rib ed ab ov e. Ben to n was in di ct ed on a co un t of m ak in g fal se st at em en ts to la w

en fo rcem en t, in vi ol at io n of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2 an d 10 01 (a)( 2) (Co un t 5) an d Kes ari was

in di ct ed on a co un t of ob st ru ct io n of jus ti ce, in vi ol at io n of 18 U.S.C. § 15 12 (b )(3 )

(Co un t 6)

. The di st ric t co ur t di sm is se d wit ho ut pr ejud ic e Co un ts 1 th ro ug h 4 ag ai ns t

Ben to n an d Tate be cau se th e go ve rn m en t ha d pr es en te d in fo rm at io n to th e gr an d jury

t h a t Ben to n an d Tate ha d pr of fere d to th e FBI, in vi ol at io n of th ei r pr of fe r

ag reem en ts

. The jury co nv ic te d Kesar i of Cou nt 2, caus in g fals e reco rd s; acq ui tt ed

Kes ari of C ou nt 6, o bs tru ct io n of jus ti ce; an d acq ui tt ed Ben to n of Co un t 5 , m ak in g

fal se st at em en ts to la w e nf or cem en t. The jury was un ab le to reac h a ve r d i c t on th e

rem ai ni ng co un ts

.

By way of a s u p e rs ed in g in di ct m en t, a gr an d jury ag ai n ch arg ed Defen da nt s

wit h Co un ts 1 th ro ug h 4, ex cep t Kes ari . wh o was no t i n d i c t e d o n Co un t 2. Afte r a

se co nd tri al , th e jury con vi ct ed Defen da nt s o n a ll co un ts

.

-9

-II. Dis cu ss io n

A. Stat ut or y

Co ns tru ct io n a nd Su ffi ci en cy of t he Evi de nc e

Defen da nt s arg ue th at th e di st ric t co ur t err e d i n d e nyin g th ei r m ot io ns fo r

jud gm en t of acq ui tt al an d fo r a ne w tri al be cau se th e co ur t m is co ns tru ed th e rel ev an t

st at ut es an d th e ev id en ce was in su ffi ci en t to su pp or t Defen da nt s’ co nv ic ti on s. “ The 3

di st ric t co ur t’s st at ut or y co ns tru ct io n is a le g al de te rm in at io n th at we rev ie w de

no vo .” Uni te d St at es v. Mac k, 34 3 F.3 d 9 2 9

, 93 3 (8 th Ci r. 20 03 ). “ A m ot io n fo r

jud gm en t of ac qu it ta l sh ou ld be gr an te d on ly if th ere is no in te rp ret at io n of th e

ev id en ce th at wou ld al l o w a reas on ab le jury to fin d th e de fen da nt gu il ty be y on d a

r eas on ab le do ub t.” Uni te d St at es v. Bo es en

, 49 1 F.3 d 85 2, 85 5 (8 th Ci r

. 2 0 0 7 )

(q u ot in g Uni te d St at es v. Cac io pp o, 46 0 F.3 d 10 12

, 10 21 (8 th Ci r. 20 06 )). “ Thi s

co ur t vi ews th e en ti re reco rd in th e li gh t m os t fav or ab le to th e go ve rn m en t, res ol ve s

al l ev id en ti ary co nf

li ct s acco rd in gl y

, an d acce pt s al l re as ona ble in fere nc es su pp or ti ng

th e jury’ s ve rd ic t.” Id

. at 85 6. “ W e rev ie w th e di st ric t co ur t’s de ni al of a m ot io n fo r

ne w tri al fo r ab us e of di sc ret io n.” Uni te d St at es v. Dav is

, 53 4 F.3 d 90 3, 91 2 (8 th Ci r.

20 08 ). 4

Ben to n als o app eal s fr om th e de ni al of hi s m ot io n to di sm is s th e in di ct m en t,

3

a ru li ng th at we rev ie w de no vo

. Uni te d St at es v. Sewel l, 51 3 F.3 d 82 0, 82 1 (8 th Ci r.

20 08 ).

W e reject at th e ou ts et Ben to n’s argu m en t t ha t th e ev id en ce was in su ffi ci en t

4

b e c au se th e di st ric t co ur t erre d in rel y in g on So ren so n’s te st im on y

. In co n s i d e r i n g

a m ot io n fo r a ne w tri al

, “ th e di st ric t co ur t m ay weig h th e ev id en ce an d ev al ua te th e

cred ib il it y of th e wit ne ss es

, bu t th e ‘aut ho rit y to gr an t a ne w tri al sh ou ld be ex erci se d

sp ari ng ly an d wit h cau ti on .’ ” Dav is

, 5 34 F.3 d at 91 2 (q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es v.

St ur di va nt , 51 3 F .3d 79 5, 8 02 (8t h C ir. 2 00 8) ).

-1 0-1. Fe de ral Elec ti on Cam pa ig n Act

The Act req ui res th e tr eas ur er o f a p ol it ic al cam pa ig n c om m it te e to fil e wit h

th e Co m m is si on a rep or t di sc lo si ng “ th e na m e an d ad dr es s of each [] pe rs on to who m

an ex pe nd it ur e in an ag gr eg at e am ou nt or va lu e in ex ces s of $2 00 wit hi n th e cal en da r

y ear is m ad e by th e rep or ti ng co m m it te e to m eet a can di da te or co m m it te e op erat in g

ex pe ns e, to ge th er wit h th e da te

, am ou nt

, an d pu rp os e of su ch op erat in g ex pe nd it ur e.”

52 U.S.C. § 3 01 04 (a)( 1) , (b) (5 )(A). Vio la ti on s o f th e Act ’s r ep or ti ng req ui rem en ts

co m m it te d “ kn owi ng ly an d wil lfu ll y ” an d “ ag gr eg at in g $2 5,0 00 o r mo re du rin g a

cal en da r y ear” m ay be pu ni sh ed by up to fiv e y ear s ’ im pr is on m en t. Id

.

§ 3 01 09 (d )(1 )(A)(i ).

Defen da nt s arg ue th at th e Act do es no t pr oh ib it a cam pa ig n fro m pa y in g a

ve nd or

, whi ch in tu rn pa y s a su b- ve nd or

, whi le rep or ti ng on ly th e pa y m en t to th e fir st

ve nd or

. As th e di st ric t co ur t no te d in it s or de r de n y in g Defen da nt s’ m ot io ns

, th is

arg um en t is un av ai li ng be cau se Defen da nt s were no t ch arg ed wit h vi ol at in g th e Act

m erel y by fai li ng to rep or t So ren so n as th e ul t i mat e reci pi en t of th e cam pa ig n’s

pa y m en ts to ICT. Rat he r, th e go ve rn m en t “ was pr op erl y pe rm it te d to arg ue th at [th e]

c o mb i n a t i on of a pa y ee us ed to di sg ui se th e tru e pa y ee, to ge th er wit h a fal s e

st at em en t of pu rp os e, was su ffi ci en t to vi ol at e th e st at ut es al le ge d in th e in di ct m en t.”

D. Ct. Ord er o f Oct . 24 , 20 16 , at 4 -5

.

The di st ric t co ur t’s an al y si s does not conf li ct wit h th e Co m

m is si on ’s de ci si on s.

In Mo nd al e fo r Pres id en t, th e Co m m is si on ad vi se d th at a cam pa ig n m ay r e p or t

ex pe nd it ur es to a c o r p o rat io n it hi red to pr ov id e m ed ia co ns ul ti ng se rv ic es wit ho ut

rep or ti ng th e co rp or at io n’s ex pe nd it ur es to it s su b- ve nd or s. FEC Adv is or y Opi ni on

19 83 -2 5 (Mo nd al e fo r Pres id en t). And in Kirk fo r Sen at e, th e Co m m is si on co nc lu de d

th at a cam pa ig n ha d no t vi ol at ed th e Act’s rep or ti ng req ui rem en ts by pa y in g a ve nd or

fo r m ed ia se rv ic es

, who in tu rn pa id a su b- ve nd or th at al le ge dl y us ed so m e of th e

fu nd s to pa y th e pe rs on al ex pe ns es of th e ca n d i d a t e ’s gi rlf rie nd

. Kirk fo r Sen at e,

-1 1-Mat te r Und er Rev ie w (MUR) 65 10 (FEC Ju ly 16

, 20 13 ). In bo th m at te rs

, ho wev er,

t h e C o mm is si on co nc lu de d th at th e ve nd or s an d su b- ve nd or s ha d pr ov id ed th e

se rv ic es de sc rib ed by th e cam pa ig n. In de ed

, in Mo nd al e, th e Co m m is si on no te d th at

it em iz at io n of th e ve nd or ’s pa y m en ts to su b- ve nd or s wou ld no t be req ui red be cau se

th e cam pa ig n wou ld rep or t “ sp eci fic in fo rm at io n de sc rib in g th e va rio us pu rp os es of

each ex pe nd it ur e m ad e” to th e ve nd or

, su ch as “ m ed ia co ns ul ti ng f e e s

, m ed ia

ph ot oc op y ex pe ns es

, m ed ia bu y s, m ed ia pr od uc t i o n, an d ot he r si m il ar de sc rip ti ve

la ng ua ge th at refl ect s th e act ua l pu rp os e of each ” of th e cam pa ig n’s ex pe nd it ur es to

th e ve nd or

. Here, by co nt ras t, th e go ve rn m en t pr es en te d ev id en ce th at Defen da nt s

cau se d fal se rep or ts to th e Co m m is si on th at th e pa y m en ts to ICT were fo r

“ au di o/ vi su al ex pe ns es ,” whe n in real it y ICT ha d pr ov id ed no su ch se rv ic es to th e

cam pa ig n a nd th e p ay m en ts were i ns te ad for So ren so n’s en do rs em en t.

The Co m m is si on fo un d a vi ol at io n of th e Act’s rep or ti ng req ui rem en ts in a

m at te r who se fact s are si m il ar to th os e he re, In th e Mat te r of Je nk in s fo r Sen at e 19 96

an d W oo dy Je nk in s, MUR 48 72 (FEC Feb

. 15

, 20 02 ). The cam pa ig n ha d co nt ract ed 5

wit h a co m

pa ny cal le d Im

pa ct Mai l & Pri nt in g fo r co m pu te riz ed ph on e ba nk se rv ic es

.

The cam pa ig n wan te d t o c on ceal it s as so ci at io n wit h Im pa ct Mai l, ho wev er, an d to

th at en d it is su ed pa y m en ts to it s m ed ia fir m

, Co ur tn ey Co m m un ic at io ns

, whi ch th en

tra ns m it te d th e pa y m en ts to Im pa ct Mai l. The cam

pa ig n’s rep or ts to th e Co m m is si on

refl ect ed di sb ur se m en ts to Co ur tn ey Co m m un ic at io ns an d n ot to Im

pa ct Mai l. The

Co m m is si on reas on ed th at be cau se Co ur tn ey Co m m un ic at io ns “ ha d no in vo lv em en t

wha ts oe ve r wit h th e se rv ic es pr ov id ed by Im pa ct Mai l,” an d se rv ed on ly “ as a co nd ui t

f o r pa y m en t to Im

pa ct Mai l so as to co nc eal th e tra ns act io n wit h Im pa ct Mai l, ” t h e

cam pa ig n h ad vi ol at ed th e Act ’s rep or ti ng req ui rem en ts

.

Defen da nt s co nt en d th at th is m a t t e r la ck s pe rs ua si ve va lu e be cau se th e 5

Co m m is si on ’s vi ews were se t fo rth in a co nc il ia ti on ag reemen t reac he d by th e

Co m m is si on an d Res po nd en ts

. W e no te

, h o w e v er, th at th e co nc il ia ti on ag reem en t

was acce pt ed by m ajor it y vo te of t he Co m

m is si on ers

.

-1 2-D e fen da nt s ci te Bo us ta ny, Jr

. MD fo r Co ng res s, MUR 66 98 (FEC Feb

. 23

,

20 16 )

, i n s up po rt of th ei r arg um en t, bu t we do no t fin d th at cas e pe rs ua si ve

. The

su pp le m en t to th e co m

pl ai nt in th at m at te r se t fo rth al le ga ti on s si m il ar to th os e in th is

cas e, an d in a th re e

- t o

- t h r e e vo te th e Co m m is si on fai le d to fin d le ga l vi ol at io ns

.

Tho se Co m

m is si on ers vo ti ng to ta ke no act io n po in te d to th e cam pa ig n’s de sc rip ti on s

of th e di sb ur se m en t’s pu rp os e as “[d]oo r-t o- do or ge t-o ut -th e-v ot e,” an d no te d th at

whi le “ a po rti on of th e di sb ur se m en t was ul ti m at el y us ed fo r an ot he r ki nd of [g et -o ut

th e-v ot e] act iv it y ,” it wou ld no t be “ a pr ud en t us e of Co mm i s s i o n res ou rces ” to

in ve st ig at e su ch a “ m in or di sc rep an cy .” Here, by co nt ras t, rep or ti ng th e pa y m en ts to

ICT a s “ au di o/ vi su al ex pe ns es ,” whe n th e act ua l pu rp os e of th e pa y m en ts was fo r

So ren so n’s en do rs em en t, ca n h ard ly be ch arac te riz ed as a “ m in or di sc rep an cy .”

W e al so reject Defen da nt s’ arg um en t t ha t t he co di ng of th e di sb ur se m en ts to

ICT as “ au di o/ vi su al ex pe ns es ” di d no t ren de r th e rep or ts f a l se

. Tha t So ren so n

pe rfo rm ed so m e wor k fo r th e c a mp a i g n th at m ig ht arg ua bl y be de sc rib ed as an

au di o / v is ua l ex pe ns e is be si de th e po in t. The go ve rn m en t’s th eo ry was th at th e

pa y m en ts to So ren so n were fo r hi s en do rs em en t an d no t fo r an y au di o/ vi su al se rv ic es

,

a th e o r y b o l s te red by th e fact th at th e pa y m en ts were arra ng ed be fo re So ren so n

pe rfo rm ed an y se rv ic es

. Bas ed on Co m m is si on Bran ch Ch ie f M i c h a el Hart so ck ’s

tri al te st im on y

, Defen da nt s co nt en d th at “ a cam pa ig n is li m it ed in th e way th at it can

rep or t di sb ur se m en ts an d st il l co m pl y wit h th e Co m

m is si on ’s faci al rev ie w,” th at th e

Co m m iss ion co nsi de rs “ au dio /v is ua l” to be an ad eq ua te ex pe nd it ur e pu rp os e, an d th at

it co ns id ers “ po l i t i c a l co ns ul ti ng ” or “ en do rs em en t” to be in ad eq ua te pu rp os es

.

Ben to n Br. 28 -2 9. Hart so ck ’s tes ti m on y , ho wev er, w as th at th e Co m m is si on ’s li st s

of ad eq ua te an d in ad eq ua te di sb ur se m en t pu rp os es are no n- ex ha us ti ve

, an d he ag reed

th at “ whi le co ns ul ti ng is no t an acce pt ab le pu rp os e, sp eci fy in g th e type of co ns ul ti ng

se rv ic es pr ov id e d can he lp to en su re th at th e pu rp os e is co ns id ered ad eq ua te .” He

al so te st ifi ed th at “ au di o/ vi su al ” do es no t ap pe ar on ei th er th e li st of ad eq ua te or th e

li st of in ad eq ua te pu rp os es

. Thi s te st im on y th us di d no t es ta bl is h th at “ au di o/ vi su al ”

was an accu rat e de sc rip ti on of th e pu rp os e f o r t h e di sb ur se m en ts to ICT, no r di d it

-1 3-es ta bl is h th at D efen da nt s co ul d no t ha ve accu rat el y de sc rib ed th e pu rp os e fo r th e

di sb ur se m en ts in a m an ne r th at wou ld ha ve be en acce pt ed by the Co m m is si on

.

Ben to n an d Tate co nt en d t h at th e ev id en ce was in su ffi ci en t to su pp or t th ei r

co nv ic ti on s un de r th e Act be cau se it di d no t sh ow th at th ey were in vo lv ed in

pr ep ari ng th e fal se Co m

m is si on r e p o r t s

. W e di sa gr ee. The go ve rn m en t pr es en te d

ev id en ce t ha t Be nt on an d Tat e co or di na te d wi th Kesa ri to of fer So ren so n m on ey

in

ret ur n fo r en do rs in g Pau l an d th at th ey ap pr ov ed a wire tra ns fer to pa y So ren so n aft er

he ha d do ne so

. Afte r th e Bac hm an n cam pa ig n cl ai m ed th at So ren so n ha d be en pa id

fo r hi s en do rs em en t, Tate to ld Ben to n th at ev eryone in vo lv ed sh ou ld be “ pr ep ared to

sa y th e sa m e th in g,” na m el y

, th at So ren so n ha d no t be en pa id fo r hi s en do rs em en t.

B e n t o n to ld m em

be rs of th e m ed ia th at So ren so n wou ld no t be pa id by th e Pau l

cam pa ig n. The Pau l cam

pa ig n i ss ue d a Ben to n- ap pr ov ed st at em en t fr om So ren so n

th at So ren so n wou ld no t be pa id by th e cam pa ig n an d th at th e cam pa ig n’s

fo rt h c o mi ng Co m

m is si on rep or ts wou ld be ar ou t th is cl ai m

. Tate an d Ben to n

in st ru ct ed Co rte s to ho ld th e pr ev io us ly-app ro ve d wire

, whi ch

, Kes ari ex pl ai ne d, was

in te nd ed to pr ev en t it fro m a p p e a r i ng on th at qu art er’s Co m m is si on rep or t. Late r,

Tate to ld Co rte s to “ [w]ipe [th e wire ] of f th e bo ok s.” Ben to n t ol d Kes ari to ha nd le

th e p ay m en ts to So ren so n. Kes ari sen t se ve ral in vo ic es fro m ICT to Co rte s, s ay in g

in ne arl y ev ery cas e th at th e di sb ur se m en ts ha d be en ap pr ov ed by Ben to n. Kes ari to ld

Ben to n th at th e Apr il in vo ic e was fo r “ Ken t’s bi ll .” Tate ap pr ov ed th e in vo ic es aft er

Co rte s fo rward ed th em to hi m

. Alt ho ug h Tate as ke d wha t th e Ju ne in vo ic e was fo r,

he ap pr ov ed th e in vo ic e im m ed ia te ly aft er Kes ari to ld hi m th at it was fo r “ [t]he de al

jess e ag reed to wit h ke nt .” The jury was en ti tl ed to in fer fro m th es e fact s th at Ben to n

an d Tate ha d kn owi ng ly an d wil lfu ll y cau se d Com m is si on rep or ts to be fil ed whi ch

fal se ly rep or te d th e pa y m en ts to So ren so n fo r hi s en do rs em en t as p a ym en ts to ICT

fo r au di o/ vi su al ser vi ces

.

W e reject Defen da nt s’ arg um en ts th at th e rep or ti ng req ui rem en ts are so va gu e

or co nf us in g th at we sh ou ld ei th er ap pl y th e ru le of le ni ty or de te rm in e th at cri m in al

-1 4-en fo rcem en t is no t ap pr op ria te in th is cas e. As se t fo rth ab ov e, Defen da nt s were no t

c o n vi ct ed fo r an un su cces sf ul

, go od -fai th at te m

pt to accu rat el y rep or t th e

di sb ur se m en ts to ICT, bu t fo r kn owi ng ly an d wil lfu ll y cau si ng fal se rep or ts to be fil ed

wit h th e Co m

m is si on

, a co nv ic ti on th at we co nc lu de fin ds am pl e ev id en ti ary su pp or t

in th e rec or d.

2. Ca us in g F al se Reco rd s

Defen da nt s ch al le ng e th ei r c on vi ct io ns un de r 18 U.S.C. § 15 19

, whi ch

pr ov id es :

W ho ev er kn owi ng ly al te rs

, de st ro y s, m ut il a t e s, co nc eal s, co ve rs up

, fal si fie s, or m ak es a fal se en try in an y reco rd

, do cu m en t, or ta ng ib le

ob ject wit h th e in te nt to im

pe de

, ob st ru ct

, or in flu en ce th e in ve st ig at io n

or pr op er ad m in is tra ti on of an y m at te r w i th in th e juri sd ic ti on of an y

de pa rtment or ag en cy of th e Uni te d St at es or an y cas e fil ed un d e r t it le

11

, or in rel at io n to or co nt em pl at io n of an y su ch m at te r or cas e, sh al l be

fin ed un de r th is ti tl e, im

pr is on ed no t m or e th an 20 y ears , or b ot h.

Tate arg ue s th at ap pl y in g § 1 5 1 9 t o f a ls e rep or ts of cam

pa ig n ex pe nd it ur es

w ou ld ren de r th e Act su pe rfl uo us

. “ Sect io n 15 19 was en act ed as pa r t o f t h e

Sarb an es -Ox le y Act of 20 02

, 11 6 St at

. 74 5, le gi sl at io n de si gn ed to pr ot ect in ve st or s

an d rest or e tru st in fin an ci al m ark et s fo ll owi ng th e co ll ap se of Enro n Cor po rat io n.”

Yate s v. Uni te d St at es

, 13 5 S. Ct

. 10 74

, 10 79 (2 01 5)

. The Su pr eme C o u r t ha s

cau ti on ed ag ai ns t “ cu t[t in g] § 15 19 lo os e fr om its fina nc ia l-f rau d m oo rin g to ho ld th at

it en co m pa ss es an y an d al l ob

jects

, wha te ve r th ei r si ze or si gn ifi can ce, de st ro y ed wit h

ob st ru ct iv e in te nt .” Id

. W e co nc lu de th at ap pl y in g § 15 19 in th e co nt ex t of th is cas e

do es no t po se su ch a ris k. In Yate s, th e Co ur t he ld th at § 15 19 was no t ap pl ic ab le to

a fis he r man ’s act io ns in th ro win g un de rs iz ed fis h ov erb oa rd in or de r to ev ad e

pu ni sh m en t. Id

. at 10 78 -7 9. The Co ur t co nc lu de d th at “ [a] ta ng ib le ob ject cap tu red

by § 15 19

. . . m

us t be on e us ed to reco rd or pr es erv e in fo rm at io n.” Id

. at 10 79

. The

-1 5-pr od uc ti on of fal se fin an ci al reco rd s by a po l i t i cal cam pa ig n fal ls wit hi n th at

fram ewo rk

. Acco rd in gl y

, we joi n th e Seco nd Ci rcu it in ho ld in g th at a de fen da nt m ay

pr op erl y be co nv ic te d fo r vi ol at io ns of th e Act an d of § 1 51 9. Se e Uni te d S ta te s v

.

Ro wlan d, 82 6 F.3 d 10 0 (2 d Ci r. 20 16 ) (aff irming co nv ic ti on s fo r vi ol at io ns of th e Act

an d 1 8 U.S.C. § § 3 71 , 10 01 , and 15 19 ), cert . den ie d, 1 37 S. Ct. 1 33 0 (2 01 7)

.

Tate al so a r g u es th at Defen da nt s’ § 15 19 co nv ic ti on s fai l be cau se th e fal se

rep or ts al le ge d in th is cas e do no t im pl ic at e a “ m at te r wit hi n th e juri sd ic ti on of ” th e

Co m m is si on

. Reg ard in g th e id en ti cal ph ras e us ed in 18 U.S.C. § 10 01

, th e Su pr em e

Co ur t ha s st at ed th at “ [t]he m os t na tu ral

, no nt ech ni cal read in g of th e st at ut or y

la ng ua ge is th at it co ve rs al l m at te rs co nf id ed to th e au th o r it y of an ag en cy or

de pa rtment.” Uni te d St at es v. Ro dg ers

, 46 6 U.S. 47 5, 47 9 (1 98 4)

. “ A de pa rtment or

ag en cy ha s juris di ct io n, in th is se ns e, whe n it ha s th e po wer to exer ci se au th or it y in

a pa rti cu la r si tu at io n. ” I d

. “U nd ers to od in th is way

, th e ph ras e ‘w it hi n th e

juri sd ic ti on ’ m erel y

di ffer en ti at es th e of

fic ia l, au th or iz ed fu nc ti on s of an ag en cy or

de pa rtment f

ro m m at te rs pe rip he ral to th e b us in es s o f th at bo dy.” Id.

W e co nc lu de th at th e fil in g of cam pa ig n- ex pe nd it ur e rep or ts co ns ti tu te s a

m at te r wit hi n th e Co m

m is si on ’s juri sd ic ti o n u n d er § 15 19

. As se t fo rth ab ov e, th e

Act req ui res cam

pa ig ns to su bm it th es e rep or ts an d es ta bl is he s pe na lt ie s fo r th ei r

fal si ty. The Co m

m is si on i s s t a t u t o ril y req ui red to m ak e th es e rep or ts av ai la bl e fo r

pu bl ic in sp ect io n. 52 U.S.C. § 30 11 1( a); 11 C.F.R. § 5.4 (a). A c c o r d i n g l y, an d in

co nt ras t t o t he si tu at io n th at ex is te d in Uni te d S ta te s v . Facch in i, 8 74 F.2d 63 8 (9 th

Ci r. 19 89 ) (en ba nc ), whe re t h e Dep art m en t of Lab or ’s au th or iz at io n was on ly to

m on it or th e ad m in is tra ti ve st ru ct ur e o f th e st at e’s un em pl oym en t b en efi ts pro gr am

,

he re th e fal se Co m

m is si on rep or ts di d no t co ns ti tu te “ [m ]ere acce ss to in fo rm at io n,”

bu t rat he r “ in fo rm at io n rece iv ed [th at was ] di rect ly rel at ed to an au th or iz ed fu nc ti on ”

of th e Co m

m is si on

. Id

. at 64 2. W e co nc lu de th at fo r th e sa m e reas on s as de sc rib ed

ab ov e reg ard in g th e v io la ti on of t he Act, t he ev id en ce was su ffi ci en t fo r th e jury to

-1 6-fin d th at Defen da nt s kn owi ng ly f a ls ifi ed do cu m en ts wit h th e in te nt to im pe de th e

Co m m is si on ’s adm in is tra ti on of t ha t m at te r.

3. Fa ls e St at em en ts Sch em e

Und er 18 U.S.C. § 10 01 (a)( 1)

, “ who ev er, in an y m at te r wit hi n th e juri sd ic ti on

of th e ex ecu ti ve

, le gi sl at iv e, or jud ic ia l br an ch of th e Gov ern m en t of th e Uni te d

St at es

, kn owi ng ly an d wil lfu ll y [] fal si fie s, c o n c e a l s

, or co ve rs up by an y tri ck

,

sc he m e, or de v i c e a m at eri al fact ” m ay be im pr is on ed fo r up to fiv e y ears

.

Defen da nt s arg ue th at

, ev en as su m in g th at th ey cau se d fal se rep or ts to be su bm it te d

to th e Co m

m is si on

, th e ev id en ce was in su ffi ci en t fo r th e jur y t o co nv ic t th em of

vi ol at in g § 10 01 (a)( 1) be cau se th e fal se st at em en ts were no t m at eri al

. W e di sa gr ee.

“ A f al se st at em en t is m at eri al if it ha s a na tu ral te nd en c y t o in flu en ce or was

cap ab le of in flu en ci ng th e go ve rn m en t ag en cy or of fic ia l to whi ch it was ad dr es se d.”

Uni te d St at es v. Ch m ie le wsk i, 21 8 F.3 d 84 0, 84 2 (8 th Ci r. 20 00 ); se e al so Uni te d

St at es v. Gau di n, 5 1 5 U

. S. 50 6, 50 9 (1 99 5) (“ The st at em en t m us t ha ve ‘a na tu ral

t e n d en cy to in flu en ce, or [b e] cap ab le of in flu en ci ng

, th e de ci si on of th e

de ci si on m ak in g bo dy to whi ch it was ad dr es se d.’” (q uo ti ng Kun gys v. Uni te d St at es

,

48 5 U.S. 75 9, 77 0 (1 98 8 ) ) )

. D e f en da nt s co nt en d th at th is st an da rd was no t m et in

li gh t of Hart so ck ’s te st im on y th at a co m pl et ed rep or t fi l e d w i th th e Co m m is si on is

au to m at ic al ly po st ed on th e Co m m is si o n ’s w e b s i te an d is ta ke n do wn on ly if a

su bs eq ue nt rev ie w d et erm in es th at th e rep or t is in co m pl et e. Defen da nt s a r g u e th at

th e fal se st at em en ts of pu rp os e were no t m at eri al be cau se th ey di d no t in flu en ce th e

Co m m is si on in li gh t of th e fact th at accu rat e rep or ts wou ld ha ve be en pu bl is he d, jus t

as th e fal se rep or ts were.

Pe r h ap s so

, bu t th at do es no t fo recl os e th e po ss ib il it y th at th e Co m m is si on

m ig ht ha ve ta ke n di ffer en t act i o n h a d th e rep or ts tru th fu ll y de sc rib ed th e

di sb ur se m en ts ’ pu rp os e. To pr ov e m at eri al it y

, th e Co m m is si on ne ed ed to sh ow on ly

-1 7-th at th e fal se r e p o r ts were cap ab le of in flu en ci ng it s de ci si on an d no t th at th ey

su ccee de d in do in g so

. U n i t e d S t a te s v. W in te rm ut e, 44 3 F.3 d 99 3, 10 01 (8 th Ci r.

20 06 ). W e co nc lu de th at th e fal se st at em en ts in th e rep or ts sat is fie d § 10 01 (a)( 1) ’s

m at eri al it y

req ui rem en ts

.

4. Co ns pi racy

U n d e r 18 U.S.C. § 37 1, “ [i]f two or m or e pe rs on s co ns pi re [] to c o mm i t a n y

of fen se ag ai n s t t h e Uni te d St at es

. . . or an y ag en cy th ereo f

. . . an d on e or m or e of

su ch pe rs on s do an y act to effe ct th e ob ject of th e co ns pi racy,” each co ns pi rat or m ay

be im pr is on ed fo r up to fiv e y ea r s

. “ Co ns pi racy is an

. . . ag reem en t to co m m it an

un la wfu l act .” Uni te d St at es v. Pu ll m an

, 18 7 F.3 d 81 6, 82 0 (8 th Ci r. 19 99 ) (q uo ti ng

Ian ne ll i v. Uni te d St at es

, 42 0 U.S. 77 0, 77 7 ( 1 9 75 )). “ Pro of of a de fen da nt ’s

in vo lv em en t in a co ns pi racy m ay o f c o u r s e be de m on st rat ed by di rect or

ci rcu m st an ti al ev id en ce. ” U n i t e d St at es v. Lop ez, 44 3 F.3 d 10 26

, 10 30 (8 th Ci r.

20 06 ) (en ba nc ).

W e co nc lu de th at th e ev id en ce was su ffi ci en t fo r th e jury to co nv ic t Defen da nt s

of co ns pi racy. The go ve rn m en t pr es en te d ev id en ce th at Defen da nt s co or di na te d wit h

on e an ot he r to co nc eal th e pa y m en ts to So ren so n by pa y in g hi m th ro ug h ICT an d th at

Defen da nt s kn ew th at th e pu rp os e of th os e pa y m en ts w ou ld ul ti m at el y be fal se ly

rep or te d to th e Co m

m is si on

. Tha t sa m e ev id en ce was su ffi ci en t to pe rm it th e jury to

fin d t ha t Def

en da nt s en te red in to an ag reem en t t o t ak e su ch act io n.

B. Mu lt ip li ci ty

Kes ari arg ue s th at Co un ts 2, 3, an d 4 were m ul ti pl ic it ou s an d th us vi ol at ed hi s

rig ht s un de r th e Fi fth Am en dm en t’s Dou bl e Je op ard y Cl au se

. W e rev ie w th is cl ai m

de no vo

. Uni te d St at es v. Em ly, 74 7 F .3d 97 4, 9 77 (8t h Ci r. 20 14 ). Kes ari arg ue s

th at we m us t de te rm in e “ whe th er Co ng res s in te nd ed th e fact s un de rlyin g each co un t

-1 8-to m ak e up a se pa rat e un it of pr os ecu ti on .” Id

. (q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es v. Ch ip ps

, 41 0

F.3 d 43 8, 44 7 (8 th Ci r. 20 05 )). Thi s te st ap pl ie s, ho wev er, on ly whe n m ul ti pl e co un ts

of an in di ct m en t char ge th e sa m e st at ut or y vi ol at io n. Id . Here, eac h c ou nt ch arg ed

a vi ol at io n of a di ffer en t st at ut e. Acco rd in gl y

, we ap pl y th e te st de riv ed fro m

Bl oc kb ur ge r v. Uni t e d St at es

, 28 4 U.S. 29 9 (1 93 2)

, whi ch pr ov id es th at “ if each

of fen se req ui res pr oo f of an el em en t no t req ui red by th e ot he r, th e cri m es are no t

co ns id ered th e s a me, a n d a do ub le jeop ard y ch al le ng e ne ces sa ril y fai ls .” Uni te d

St at es v. San ds tro m

, 59 4 F. 3 d 63 4, 65 4 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 ) (q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es v.

Gam bo a, 43 9 F.3 d 79 6, 80 9 (8 th Ci r. 20 06 )). Each of th e th ree co un ts req ui res pr oo f

of an el em en t t h e o t h e r s d o no t: th e Act req ui res a m on et ary th res ho ld to be m et ;

§ 15 19 req ui res an in te n t t o i mp e de

, ob st ru ct

, or in flu en ce a fed eral m at te r; an d

§ 1 00 1 re qu ire s a s ho win g o f m at eri al it y

.

C. Sev eran ce

Pri or to th e se co nd tri al

, Tate m ov ed to se ve r hi s tr ia l fro m hi s co de fen da nt s

so th at Kes ari co ul d te st ify on hi s be ha lf. A he ari ng was he l d b e f or e a m ag is tra te

jud ge

, du rin g whi ch Kes ari ’s co un se l st at ed th at if Tate ’s tri al were se ve red

, Kes ari

6

wou ld te st ify th at on Decem be r 28

, th e da y So ren so n en do rs ed Pau l, Ta te was to ld

th at So ren so n ha d no t be en pr om is ed an y th in g in ret ur n f o r e n d o r si ng Pau l; th at

Kes ari di d no t te ll Tate ab ou t t he $2 5,0 00 ch eck he ga ve to So ren so n’s wife ; th at

Kes ari ha d no reco ll ect io n of te ll in g Tate ab ou t th e $2 5,0 00 wire ; th at no de al to pa y

So ren so n ex is te d un ti l Ja nu ary 20 12 ; th at Kes ari ne ve r p a s s e d o n to Tate an y

in fo rm at io n ab ou t ICT or th e m et ho d of pa y i n g S or en so n; an d th at Kes ari do es no t

reca ll te ll in g Tate an y th in g abo ut pa y m en ts to So ren so n, in cl ud in g ho w th ey wou ld

be rep or t e d t o t h e Co m

m is si on

, ot he r th an in th e em ai ls of fere d in to ev id en ce. In

op po si ti on

, th e go ve rn m en t of fere d so m e of Kes ari ’s em ai ls an d an in te rv ie w wit h th e

The Hon or ab le Hele n C. Ada m s, Uni te d St at es Mag is tra te Ju dg e fo r th e 6

So ut he rn Dis tri ct of I owa

.

-1 9-FBI, in w h i c h K es ari st at ed th at Pau l an d an ot he r cam pa ig n of fic er di d no t kn ow

ab ou t th e de al to pa y So ren so n bu t di d no t sa y th e sa m e ab ou t Tate

. The di st ric t co ur t

ad op te d th e m ag is tra te jud ge ’s rep or t an d reco m m en da ti on th at th e m ot io n be de ni ed

in li gh t of th e eq ui vo cal na tu re of Kes ari ’s te st im on y an d th e im pe ach m en t ev id en ce

av ai la bl e to th e g ov ern m en t.

“ The re is a pr efer en ce in th e fed eral syste m for joi nt tri al s of defe nd an ts who

are in di ct ed to ge th er.” Uni te d St at es v. And ers on

, 78 3 F.3 d 72 7, 74 3 (8 th Ci r. 20 15 )

(q uo ti ng Zafi ro v. Uni te d St at es

, 50 6 U.S. 53 4, 53 7 (1 99 3) ). “ Thi s pr efer en ce is

‘esp eci al ly co m

pe ll in g whe n th e de fen da nt s are ch arg ed as co co ns pi rat or s.’” Id

. (q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es v. Bas il e, 10 9 F.3 d 13 04

, 13 09 (8 th Ci r. 19 97 )). “ It is se tt le d

in th is ci rcu it th at a m ot io n fo r rel ie f fro m an al le ge dl y pr ejud ic ia l joi nd er of ch arg es

or de fen da nt s rai se s a qu es ti on th at is ad dr es se d to th e jud ic ia l di sc ret io n of th e tri al

co ur t, an d th is co ur t wil l no t rev ers e in th e ab se n c e o f a c l e ar sh owi ng of ab us e of

di sc ret io n.” Uni te d St at es v. St arr, 58 4 F.2 d 23 5, 23 8 (8 th Ci r. 19 78 ) (q uo ti ng Uni te d

St at es v. Ro ch on

, 57 5 F.2 d 19 1, 19 7 (8 th Ci r. 19 78 )). “ [I]n vi ew of th e st ro ng

po li ci es fav or in g joi nt tri al s whe re pe rm is si bl e, th e de fen da nt m us t sh o w t ha t th e

co -d efen da nt ’s te st i mo n y wou ld be su bs ta nt ia ll y ex cu lp at or y

. The de fen da nt m us t

sh ow th at th e co -d efen da nt ’s te st im on y wou l d do m or e th an ‘m erel y te nd to

co nt rad ic t a few de ta il s of th e go ve rn m en t’s cas e ag ai ns t [h im or h e r ]. ’” Uni te d

St at es v. DeLun a, 76 3 F.2 d 89 7, 92 0 (8 th Ci r. 19 85 ) (q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es v. Garci a,

64 7 F .2d 79 4, 7 96 (8t h Ci r. 19 81 )), ab ro ga te d o n o th er g ro un ds by U ni te d S ta te s v

.

In ad i, 47 5 U.S. 38 7 (1 98 6)

. In de ci di ng whe th er a co -d efen da nt ’s te st im on y wou ld

be su bs ta nt ia ll y ex cu lp at or y

, th e di st ric t cou rt was ent it le d to ta ke in to acco un t “ th e

ot he r t r i a l ev id en ce an d th e im pe ach m en t ev id en ce av ai la bl e to th e go ve rn m en t.”

Uni te d S ta te s v . Oaki e, 12 F.3d 14 36 , 14 41 (8t h C ir. 1 99 3)

.

Kes ari ’s p ro ffer ed st at em en ts th at Tate was t ol d t ha t So ren so n was pr om is ed

no th in g fo r hi s en do rs em en t, th at Kes ari co ul d no t reca ll te l l i n g Ta t e ab ou t th e

$2 5,0 00 wire

, th at no de al to pa y So ren so n ex is te d un ti l Ja nu ary 20 12

, an d th at Kes ari

-2 0-co ul d no t r e c a l l t e l li ng Tate ab ou t th e pa y m en ts to ICT or th e m et ho d of pa y in g

S o r e n so n were co nt rad ic te d by th e reco rd of em ai ls be twee n Ben to n, Tate

, an d

Kes ari

. Acco r d i n g l y , a lt ho ug h so m e of Kes ari ’s s ta te m en ts were un eq ui vo cal , a nd

ev en th ou gh Kes ari ’s fai lu re to ex on erat e Tate du rin g hi s in te rv ie w wit h th e FBI m ay

ha ve ha d o nl y

weak im pe ach m en t v al ue , we co nc lu de th at th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t

ab us e it s d is cret io n i n d en y in g t he m ot io n.

D. Ju ry Ins tru ct io ns

Defen da nt s arg ue th at th e di st ric t co ur t erre d in in st ru ct in g th e jury. “ W e

rev ie w de fen se ch al le ng es to th e di st ric t co ur t’s jury in st ru ct io ns fo r ab us e of

di sc ret io n.” Uni te d S ta te s v . Carl so n, 8 10 F.3d 54 4, 5 54 (8 th Ci r. 20 16 ). “ The te st

is ‘w he th er th e in st ru ct io ns

, ta ke n as a who le an d vi ewed in li gh t of th e ev id en ce an d

ap pl ic ab le la w, fai rly an d a de qu at el y su bm it te d th e is su es in th e cas e to th e jury.’ ”

I d. (q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es v. Bec km an

, 22 2 F.3 d 51 2, 52 0 (8 th Ci r. 20 00 )). W h e n

rev ie w of jury in st ru ct io ns r e q u ire s st at ut or y in te rp ret at io n, ou r rev ie w is de no vo

.

Id . at 5 51

.

Ben to n req ue st ed th at th e di st ric t co ur t in st ru ct th e jury th at it is no t il le ga l: 1)

fo r a cam pa ig n to pa y fo r an en do rs em en t; 2) fo r a cam pa ig n to de la y th e ti m in g of

pa y m en ts fro m on e rep o r t i n g p eri od to an ot he r; 3) fo r a cam pa ig n no t to rep or t

pa y m en ts fro m ve nd or s to su b- ve nd or s; 4) fo r a cam pa ig n to m ak e an ex pe nd it ur e to

a li m it ed li ab il it y

co m pa ny with ou t i de nt ifyin g i ts m em be rs or e m

pl oyees; or 5) for

a cam pa ig n t o p ay

a ve nd or m or e th an m ark et va lu e fo r se rv ic es . The d is tri ct co ur t

in st ru ct ed th e jury on th e fir st an d th ird po in ts

. The co ur t di d no t ab us e it s di sc ret io n

in de nyin g th e pr op os ed in st ru ct io ns be cau se no ne of t h e i s s u e s se t fo rth th erei n

rel at ed to th e go ve rn m en t’s pr of fere d th eo ry of co nv ic ti on

. See Uni te d St at es v.

W is ecar ve r, 64 4 F.3 d 76 4, 77 2 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ) (“ A le ga ll y accu rat e bu t irr el ev an t jury

in st ru ct io n m ay

be erro r to th e ex te nt it m is le ad s t he jury. ”).

-2 1-Ben to n al so req ue st ed th at th e di st ric t c o u r t in st ru ct th e jury th at th e te rm

“ wil lfu ll y ,” whi ch ap pe ars in bo th th e Act an d § 10 01

, sh ou ld be de fin ed as fo ll ows :

“ A pe rs on act s wil l f

u ll y if he act s vo lu nt ari ly an d in te nt io na ll y to vi ol at e a kn own

le ga l du ty. It m ean s th at th e de fen da nt ha d kn owl ed ge of wha t th e la w req ui red an d

act ed wit h th e sp eci fic pu rp os e to di so be y th e la w.” In st ead

, th e di st ric t co ur t is su ed

th e fo ll owi ng in st ru ct io n:

A pe rs on act s wil lfu ll y if he act s kn owi ng ly, pu rp os el y, a n d wit h th e

in te nt to do so m et hi ng th e la w for bi ds

. Tha t is , a pe rs on act s wi ll fu ll y

whe n th e y a c t w it h th e pu rp os e to di so be y or to di sr eg ard th e la w. A

pe rs on ne ed no t be aware of th e sp eci fic la w or ru le th at hi s co nd uc t m ay

be vi o l a t i n g

, b ut he m

us t act wit h th e in te nt to do so m et hi ng th at he

kn ows th e la w for

bi ds

.

Ben to n arg ue s th at th e te rm “ wil lfu ll y ” is va gu e be cau se th is co ur t reco gn iz es m or e

th an on e de fin it io n of th e te rm an d th us he was en ti tl ed to ha ve th e di st ric t co ur t gi ve

hi s pr op os ed in st ru ct io n be cau se it was th e mo r e l e n i e n t of th e two

. In Bryan v.

Uni te d St at es

, ho wev er, th e Su pr em e Co ur t ap pr ov ed ne a r ly id en ti cal jury

in st ru ct io ns

, ex cep t wit h reg ard to “ hi gh ly te ch ni cal st at ut es th at pr es en te d th e da ng er

of en sn ari ng in di vi du al s en ga ge d in ap pa ren t l y in no cen t co nd uc t.” 52 4 U.S. 18 4,

19 4- 95 (1 99 8)

. Bec au se Ben to n ha s no t sh own th at th is c a s e fal ls wit hi n su ch an

ex cep ti on

, we fin d no ab us e of di sc ret io n in th e di st ric t co ur t’s de ni al of hi s pr op os ed

jury ins tru ct io n.

Lik ewis e, th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t ab us e it s di sc ret io n in refu si ng to gi ve

Ben to n’s p ro po se d “ de ba ta bl e la w” in st ru ct io n, wh ic h s ta te d:

O n e fact or fo r y ou to co ns id er in de ci di ng whe th er th e de fen d a n t s

“ kn owi ng ly an d wil lfu ll y ” br ok e th e la w is whe th er th e req ui rem en ts of

th e la w were va gu e or hi gh ly de ba ta bl e. The m or e un cert ai n an d

de ba ta bl e a la w m ay be

, th e m or e di ffi c u l t it m ay be to kn ow whe th er

cert ai n co nd uc t m ay vi ol at e th e la w. So m et im es th e ap pl ic a b i l i ty of a

-2 2-la w m ay be ve ry cl ear in so m e in st an ces

, bu t no t in ot he rs

. If th e la w is

so un cert ai n or hi gh ly de ba ta bl e th at reas on ab le pe rs on s co ul d di sa gr ee,

th en th e de fen da nt s co ul d no t kn owi ng ly an d wil lfu ll y vi ol at e th e la w

an d you m

us t fi nd th em

no t g ui lt y

.

The di st ric t co ur t i ns te ad is su ed th e fo ll owi ng in st ru ct io n:

Goo d- fai th is a co m

pl et e de fen se to Co un ts 1, 2, 3 an d 4 i n t hi s cas e

be cau se go o d f

a i t h on th e pa rt of th e de fen da nt s is in co ns is te nt wit h

w i l l f u ln es s as al le ge d in Co un ts 1, 3, an d 4 an d an in te nt to im pe d e a s

al le ge d in Co un ts 1 an d 2. If th e de fen da nt s act ed in go od fai th

, si nc erel y be li ev in g th em se lv es to be ex em pt by th e la w fro m th e co nd uc t

co ns ti tu ti ng an y o f t he ab ov e ch arg es

, th en th e de fen da nt s di d no t

in te nt io na ll y vi ol at e a kn own le ga l du ty, th at is

, th e de fen da nt s di d no t

act “ wil lfu ll y .” The bu rd en of pr oo f is n ot on th e de fen da nt s to pr ov e

go od -fai th in te nt be cau se th e de fen da nt do es no t ne ed to pr ov e an y th in g.

The go ve rn m en t m

us t es ta bl i s h be y on d a reas on ab le do ub t th at th e

de fen da nt s ac te d wi ll fu ll y as c ha rg ed

.

The di st ric t co ur t’s in st ru ct io n accu rat el y se t fo rth th e la w, an d Ben to n di d no t sh ow

th at th e la w was “ va gu e or hi gh ly de ba ta bl e” so as t o w a r r a nt th e is su an ce of hi s

pr op os ed in st ru ct io n. See Uni te d St at es v. Pi card i, 73 9 F.3 d 11 18

, 11 26 -2 7 (8 th Ci r.

20 14 ) (h ol di ng th at di st ric t co ur t di d no t ab us e it s di sc ret io n in refu s i n g to is su e

“ de ba ta bl e la w” in st ru ct io n be cau s e t h e is su e of va gu en es s was res erv ed fo r th e

co ur t).

Kes ari arg ue s th at th e di st ric t co ur t erre d in fai li ng to in st ru ct th e jury th at a

c o n v i c t io n fo r vi ol at io n of § 15 19 req ui red a fin di ng th at th e de fen da nt ac t e d

wil lfu ll y

. Alt ho ug h Kesar i con ced es th at th e te xt of § 1 51 9 i nc lu de s no wil lfu ln es s

req ui rem en t, he co nt en ds th at th e r e la ti on sh ip be twee n th e Act— whi ch in cl ud es a

wil lfu ln es s req ui rem en t an d au th or iz es co m pa ra t i v e ly le ni en t pe na lt ie s— an d

§ 15 19 —wh ic h in cl ud es no wil lfu ln es s req ui rem en t y et au th or iz es co m pa rat iv el y

ha r s h pe na lt ie s— crea te s a “ po si ti ve rep ug na nc y ” su ch th at Co ng res s m us t ha ve

-2 3-in te nd ed fo r § 15 19 to in cl ud e a he ig ht en ed men s re a req ui rem en t of wil l f ul ne ss

.

Uni te d St at es v. Bat ch el de r, 44 2 U.S. 11 4, 12 2 (1 97 9)

. B at ch el de r un de rm in es

K e s a ri’s arg um en t, ho wev er, be cau se th ere th e Co ur t he ld th at wit ho ut fu rt h e r

ev i d e n c e o f in co ns is te nc y

, two st at ut es au th or iz in g di ffer en t pu ni sh m en ts fo r th e

sa m e co nd uc t m ay co ex is t. Id

. Fu rth er, th e Co ur t co ns id ered whe th er a la te r-en act ed

,

m or e le ni en t st at ut e sh ou ld be read to im pl ic it ly rep eal an earl ie r-p as se d ha rs he r on e.

Id .; see als o Uni te d St at es v. Ri ch ard so n, 8 F.3 d 15

, 17 (9 th Ci r. 19 93 ) (p er curi am )

(h ol di ng th at 18 U.S.C. § 19 20 na rro wed § 10 01

, whi ch pr ed at ed § 19 20 by 40 y ears ).

Here, by co nt ras t, Kes ari m ak es a far le ss in tu it iv e arg um en t— th at § 15 19

, whi ch was

en act ed aft er th e Act an d whi ch , a cco rd in g to Kes ari , i s br oa de r th an th e A c t , m us t

ha ve be en in te nd ed t o in cl ud e an im pl ic it he ig ht en ed men s re a el em en t to av oi d

br oa de ni ng th e li ab il it y fo r co nd uc t p u n i sh ab le un de r th e Act. W e de cl in e to read

§ 15 19 as in cl ud in g su ch an im pl ic it el em en t, al l th e m or e so be cau se th e cas es Kes ari

ci te s in su pp or t of hi s arg um en t in cl ud ed a wil lfu ln es s req ui rem en t. See Bryan, 52 4

U.S. at 18 8- 90 ; Rat zl af v. Uni te d S t at es

, 51 0 U.S. 13 5, 13 8- 40 (1 99 4) ; Ch eek v.

Uni te d Stat es

, 49 8 U.S. 19 2, 19 4 (19 91 ); Uni te d S ta te s v . Cur ran , 20 F.3d 56 0, 5 69

(3 d Ci r. 19 94 ). Acco rd in gl y

, we co nc lu de th at th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t err in refu si ng

to gi ve Kesa ri’s p ro po se d i ns tru ct io ns

.

E. Evid en ti ary Ru li ng s

“ W e rev ie w e v i d e nt ia ry ru li ng s fo r cl ear ab us e of di sc ret io n, ‘rever si ng on ly

whe n an im

pr op er ev id en ti ary ru li ng affe ct ed the de fen da nt ’s su bs ta nt ia l rig ht s or ha d

m or e th an a sl ig ht in flu en ce on th e ve r d i c t

. ’” A n de rs on

, 78 3 F.3 d at 74 5 (q uo ti ng

Uni te d S ta te s v . Henl ey , 76 6 F .3d 89 3, 9 14 (8t h C ir. 2 01 4) ).

1. Ex cl us io n o f Defen se Exp ert s

Defen da nt s arg ue th at th e di st ric t co ur t erre d in ex cl ud in g th e te st im on y of two

ex pe rt wit ne ss es

, Dav id Mas on an d Je ff Lin k. Mas on

, a cam pa ig n co ns u l t an t an d

-2 4-fo rm er Com m is si on er and Co m m is si on Ch ai rm an

, te st ifi ed at th e fir st tri al in 20 15

.

Dur in g di rect ex am

ina tio n, de fe nse co unse l as ke d se ve ral qu es ti on s reg ard in g ge ne ral

cam pa ig n- fin an ce le ga l req ui rem en ts

, to whi ch th e di st ri ct co ur t su st ai ne d se ve ral

rel ev an ce-b as ed ob

jecti on s s ay in g t o d efen se co un se l,

Thi s is no t th e su bjec t m at te r th at y ou rep res en te d wou ld be hi s

te st im on y

. You were ve ry sp eci fic ab ou t wha t y ou wan te d th is fo r.

. . . It

was rep res en t e d a s as so ci at ed wit h th e cam pa ig ns

, ho w he ct ic th e

cam pa ig ns an d th in gs li ke th at were. Tha t was th e rep res en ta ti on , a nd

th e or ga ni zat io na l st ru ct ur e of cam pa ig ns

, no t th e di ffi cu lt y co m pl y in g

wit h t he law.

Afte r de fen se co un se l as ke d Mas on if th ere was “ an y co nf us io n ab ou t th e co m

pl ia nc e

is su es wit h ve nd or s an d su b ve nd or s,” th e co ur t su st ai ne d an ot he r ob jecti on an d

cal le d c ou ns el to a si de ba r co nf eren ce, d ur in g wh ic h t he co ur t s ta te d,

Co nf us io n go es to th e st at e of m in d of an ot he r, whe th er it ’s on e pe rs on

or a who le bu nc h. Thi s ge ts ba ck to th e e x a c t sa m e co nc ern I ha d la st

week ab ou t whe th er th e Mon da le Cam pa ig n so ug ht an ad vi so ry op in io n.

Unt il I fin d ou t th at th at ’s—t ha t y ou r cl ie nt he ard it an d rel ie d up on it

an d ba se s a go od fai th de fen s e o n t h at

, it ’s no t rel ev an t. Co nf us io n

ge ne ral ly is n ot rel ev an t.

The di st ric t co ur t su st ai ne d a rel ev an ce ob jecti on whe n go ve r n men t co un se l

as ke d Ma s o n on cro ss -ex am in at io n if he ha d ev er ad vi se d a cam pa ig n th at it co ul d

rep or t a di sb ur se m en t to th e Co m miss io n as an au di ov is ua l ex pe ns e whe n th e

di sb ur se m en t was fo r so m et hi ng el se

. Gov ern m en t co un se l th en as ke d Maso n a se rie s

of qu es ti on s reg ard in g th e le ga li ty of pa y in g su b- ve nd or s th ro ug h an “ um br el la

ve nd or ,” in cl ud in g whe th er th e um br el la ve nd or wou ld ha ve to act ua ll y wor k wit h th e

su b- ve nd or s. On red ire ct ex am in at io n, de fen se co un se l as ke d Mas on ab ou t th e ru le s

reg ard in g pa y in g su b- ve nd or s th ro ug h an um br el la ve nd or an d po ss ib l e c on fu si on

su rro un di ng th os e ru le s

. Th e d is tri ct co ur t ov erru le d th e go ve rn m en t’s ob jecti on s,

-2 5-ru li ng t h a t t h e g o ve rn m en t ha d op en ed th e do or to th e is su e th ro ug h it s li ne of

qu es ti on in g on cro ss -ex am in at io n. Mas on co nt in ue d t o t e st ify o n th is to pi c du rin g

th e rem ai nd er o f hi s t es ti m on y

.

Pri or to th e be gi nn in g of th e se c o n d t r i a l, th e di st ric t co ur t gr an te d th e

go ve rn m en t’s m ot io n i n l i m in e to ex cl ud e Mas on ’s te st im on y

. It di d so be cau se

Mas on ’s te st im on y at th e fir st tri al “ di d no t pr ov id e he l p f u l co nt ex t reg ard in g th e

in ne r wor ki ng s of fed eral cam pa ig ns at al l, an d on ly arg ua bl y to uc he d on an y rel ev an t

st an da rd of care by al lu di ng to ge ne ral co nf us io n, ” a n d i ns te ad of

fere d an

im pe rm is si bl e le ga l co nc lu si on th at th e Co m m is si on reg ul at io ns were co nf us in g an d

th at pa y m en ts to su b- ve nd or s th ro ug h an um br el la ve nd or d i d no t vi ol at e th es e

r eg ul at io ns

. See S. Pi ne Heli co pt ers , I nc . v . P ho en ix Avi at io n Man ag ers , I nc ., 3 2 0

F

. 3d 83 8, 84 1 (8 th Ci r. 20 03 ) (“ [E]xpe rt te st im on y on le ga l m at te rs i s n o t

ad m is si bl e.” )

. The co ur t acco rd in gl y ex cl ud ed th e ev id en ce un de r Ru le 40 3 of th e

Fed eral Ru le of Evi de nc e, fin di ng th at th e “ he lp fu ln es s of Mr. Mas on ’s te st im on y to

th e jury’ s cl ear un de rs ta nd in g of th e ge ne ral co nt ex t of a po li ti cal cam pa ig n an d ho w

a po li ti cal cam

pa ig n op erat es is ou twei gh ed by th e da ng er of co nf us io n of th e is su es

an d im pe rm is si bl e in st ru ct io n on th e la w.” The co ur t no te d th at it wou ld in st ru ct th e

jury t h a t th e us e of an um br el la ve nd or to pa y su b- ve nd or s wou ld no t al on e vi ol at e

th e Act an d th at Defen da nt s were free to el ic it te st im on y fro m ot he r wit ne ss es

“ reg ard in g t he he ct ic na tu re o f po li ti cal cam pa ig ns .”

Ben to n se rv ed pr et ria l no ti ce th at he in te nd ed to cal l Lin k as an ex pe rt wit ne ss

to te st ify rega rd in g “ th e op erat in g env iro nm en t with in fed eral can di da te cam pa ig ns

an d th e cu st om s an d pr act ic es an d st an da rd s of care wit h res pe ct to or ga ni zat io na l

st ru ct ur e; ” “ th e cu st om s an d pr act ic es of fed eral can di da te cam pa ig ns wit h res pe ct to

pa y in g ou ts id e co ns ul ta nt s th ro ug h th e us e of co rp or at io ns

. . . a n d ot he r si m il ar

en ti ti es ;” an d “ th e cu st om s an d pr act ic es of fed eral can di da te cam pa ig ns wit h res pe ct

to th e us e of ve nd or s who su bc on tra ct fo r se rv ic es in te nd ed fo r th e be ne fi t of th e

-2 6-fed eral can di da te cam pa ig n.” The go ve rn m en t fil ed a m ot io n in li min e to e x c lu de

Lin k’s t es ti m on y , whi ch th e co ur t o ral ly gran te d d ur in g t ria l.

Tate co nt en ds th at th e di st ric t co ur t a b us ed it s di sc ret io n in ex cl ud in g th e

ex pe rts ’ te st im on y be cau se th e im pe rm is si bl e le ga l te st im on y th at th e di st ric t co ur t

was co nc ern ed ab ou t was el ic it ed by t he go ve rn m en t. The reco rd sh ows , ho wev er,

th at th e te st im on y was el ic it ed by bo th si de s. As th e d is tri ct co ur t n ot ed , tes ti m on y

ab ou t th e “ he ct ic na tu re” an d op erat i on al st ru ct ur e of th e Pau l cam pa ig n was

av ai la bl e fro m ot he r wit ne ss es wit h di rect kn owl ed ge th ereo f, an d so th e co ur t act ed

well wit hi n i ts di sc ret io n i n e xc lu di ng th e p ro po se d t es ti m on y

.

2. Ad m is si on of t he $2 5,0 00 Ch eck

Ben to n arg ue s th at th e di st ric t co ur t ab us ed it s di sc ret io n in ad m it ti ng ev id en ce

of th e $2 5,0 00 ch eck be cau se it was no t rel ev an t to th e th eo ry of co nv ic ti on an d th at

an y ta ng en ti al r e l e v a n ce was ou twei gh ed by th e da ng er of un fai r pr ejud ic e. W e

di sa g r ee. The ch eck was rel ev an t to sh ow th at th e pu rp os e of th e pa y m en ts to

So ren so n was to pu rch as e hi s en do rs em en t, rat he r th an fo r “ au di o/ vi su al ex pe ns es ,”

as was rep or te d to th e Co m m is si on

. Any po te nt ia l pr ejud ic e res ul ti ng fro m ad m is si on

of th is ev id en ce w a s mi t ig at ed by th e di st ric t co ur t’s in st ru ct io n th at pa y in g fo r an

en do rs em en t al on e is no t i ll eg al

.

3. Ad m is si on of C or te s Em ai l

Kes ari arg ue s th at th e di st ric t co ur t ab us ed it s di sc ret io n in ad m it ti ng an em ai l

se nt fro m Co rte s to ot he r cam pa ig n st aff. The em ai l st at ed th at “ Den ni s is no t a go od

gu y

. . . bu t nei th er is Dim it ri IMO- bu t th en ag ai n I do n’t kn ow it all so I le av e it to

y ou .” The em ai l al so in cl ud ed se ve ral at ta ch m en ts

, in cl ud in g th e ICT in vo ic es ; on e

at ta ch m en t bo re a le wd tit le

. Co rte s op in ed

, “ The la st at ta ch m en t is an em ai l (s or ry

f o r th e le wdn es s) I go t ab ou t a m on th ag o- no t su re who it s fro m - m y two gu e s s e s

-

-2 7-Den ni s or Dim it ri us in g d u mm y acco un ts .” The di st ric t co ur t di d no t ab us e it s

di sc ret io n in a dm it ti ng th is ev id en ce. In an y ev en t, an y pr ejud ic e to Kes ari was so

sl ig ht as to ren de r a ny erro r ha rm le ss

. Uni te d St at es v. Fal ls

, 11 7 F.3 d 10 75

, 10 77

(8 th Cir . 19 97 ).

F. Im pe ach m en t Ev id en ce

Kes ari ar gue s tha t the gove rn m en t w ith he ld fa vora bl e in fo rm at io n de riv ed fro m

an Octo be r 9, 20 15

, in te rv ie w be twee n So ren so n an d ag en ts of th e FBI, in vi ol at io n

of th e Je nc ks Act, 18 U

. S

. C

. § 35 00 (b ), an d Gig li o v. Uni te d St at es

, 40 5 U.S. 15 0,

15 4- 55 (19 72 ).

Kes ari di d no t es ta bl is h a vi ol at io n of th e Je nc ks Act be cau se he ha s no t sh own

th at no te s of th is mee ti ng ex is t. The Je nc ks Act req ui res a co ur t to or de r th e

go ve rn m en t, up on req ue st by th e de fen da n t

, t o p r od uc e an y st at em en t in th e

go ve rn m en t’s po ss es si on whi ch rel at es to th e m at te r on whi ch a wit ne ss cal le d by th e

go ve rn m en t ha s te st ifi ed on di rect ex am in at io n. 18 U.S.C. § 35 00 (b ). I n res po ns e

to su bp oe na s is su ed by Defen da nt s, th e go ve rn men t s t at ed th at So ren so n ha d m et

wit h FBI ag en ts on Octo be r 9 an d th at no no te s were ta ke n a t th e m eet in g. Kes ari

arg ue s th at tri al te st im on y est ab li sh ed th at no te s wer e ta ke n a t th e m eet in g, bu t th at

te st im on y was eq ui vo cal

. Dur in g th e fir st tri al

, So ren so n was as ke d if pe op le at th e

m eet in g were ta ki ng no te s, an d he res po nd ed

, “ I do n’t reca ll .” The n, whe n as ke d,

“ We r e [ n o te ] pa ds ou t? ” So ren so n sa id

, “ Yes .” W he n as ke d “ And were pe op le

writ in g o n t ho se pa ds as you sp ok e to th em ? ” h e rep li ed , “ I wou ld ass um e so , y es .”

Dur in g th e se co nd tri al

, FBI Sp eci al Age nt Karen LoSt rac c o

, who at te nd ed th e

Oct o b e r 9 m eet in g al on g wit h two ot he r ag en ts

, te st ifi ed

, “ I th in k I us ua ll y ta ke at

le as t so m e no te s. I do n ’t reca ll an oc cas io n whe re I di dn ’t ta ke no te s. If I was n’t

ta ki ng no te s, so m eb od y el se was ta ki n g n o t e s

, meani ng an ot he r ag en t.” In th e

ab se nc e of an y pr ob at iv e ev id en ce th at no te s were ta ke n at th e Octo be r 9 m eet in g, no

Je nc ks Act v io la ti on was e st ab li sh ed

.

-2 8-Kes ari arg ue s th at ev en if n o t an gi bl e no te s exi st

, Gig li o no ne th el es s ent it le d

hi m t o i mp e a ch m en t ev id en ce fro m th e m eet in g. As Kes ari of fers on ly th e

sp ecu la ti ve cl ai m th at th e Octo be r 9 m eet in g m us t ha ve pr od uc ed im

pe ach m en t

ev id en ce in li gh t o f So ren so n’s pe nc ha nt fo r di sh on es ty, h e ha s no t sh own th at an y

im pe ach m en t ev id en ce ex is te d a nd th us ha s es ta bl is he d n o Gi gl io vi ol at io n.

The jud gm en ts are af

fir m ed

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-2 9-