Source: https://rosenblattlegal.com/lawyer/blog_category/Criminal-Defense
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 16:20:52+00:00

Document:
New York Court of Appeals – In People v. Rivera, No. 117 (June 10, 2014), the Court of Appeals determined that a brief colloquy in the robing room between the trial judge and a juror should not have taken place outside the presence of the defendant, even with the consent of counsel. Because it did, the Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s reversal of defendant’s conviction for second-degree criminal possession of a weapon.
Anner Rivera shot and killed Andres Garcia after Garcia shot Rivera’s friend several times. Rivera was indicted for intentional murder and weapons possession, but claimed that he shot Garcia in self defense. The trial court instructed the jury on the defense of justification on each count of the indictment. After deliberating for more than a day, the jury sent a note seeking an explanation of certain terms defined in the jury instructions. The court advised the jury and directed it to continue deliberations.
Shortly thereafter, juror number 11 requested to speak with the court. The judge agreed to hear from the juror in his robing room on notice to the prosecutor and counsel, but outside their presence and on the record. It is not clear whether the defendant was aware that his counsel consented to this procedure. After a brief colloquy between the judge and juror, the court summarized the conversation in the presence of counsel and (after realizing the defendant was not present and returning him to the courtroom) the defendant. Rivera was acquitted of murder and manslaughter, but convicted of second-degree possession of a weapon. The Appellate Division reversed the conviction, finding that the colloquy was improper.
The Court of Appeals explained that a defendant’s constitutional right to be present at all material phases of a trial includes the right to be present during jury instructions. This right is derived from case law, see People v. Harris, 76 N.Y. 2d 810, 812 (1990); People v. Mehmedi, 69 N.Y. 2d 759, 760 (1987); and incorporated into the Criminal Procedure Law (CPL) at section 310.30. Under CPL 310.30, whenever a deliberating jury requests additional guidance or trial evidence, “or any other matter relevant to its consideration of the case,” the court should direct the jury to be brought back into the courtroom and, after notice to both sides, should give the information or instruction as it deems proper. In the eyes of the Court of Appeals, the fact that the trial court “cured” the initial defect of speaking with a juror outside the presence of the defendant was not sufficient to overcome the procedural error in the first instance.
The Court of Appeals relied on People v. Cain, 76 N.Y. 2d 119 (1990) to support its finding that the trial court committed procedural error. In Cain, a similar robing room conversation occurred, and the Court of Appeals reversed the defendant’s conviction because “the defendant had an absolute right to be present and therefore, the error ‘mandate[d] reversal’ without regard to whether any prejudice flowed and despite the presence and consent of defense counsel.” Decision p. 6 (citation omitted). The Court of Appeals rejected the dissent’s de mimimis argument, because CPL 310.30 is unequivocal about the defendant’s right to be present at crucial stages of the trial. Likewise, the Court of Appeals disagreed with the dissent that the conversation with juror number 11 was merely “ministerial” and therefore not prejudicial to the defendant. As a result, the Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division and held that the defendant was entitled to a new trial.
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit – In United States v. Esquenazi, No. 11-15331 (11th Cir. May 16, 2014), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the convictions of two men charged with violating the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA), in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 78dd-2, concealment money laundering, conspiracy, and conspiracy to commit money laundering. In doing so the Eleventh Circuit defined the statutory term “instrumentality” as used in the FCPA, however the definition may not ultimately provide the clarity the court intended.
Joel Esquenazi and Carlos Rodriguez co-owned Terra Telecommunications Corp. (Terra), a Florida company that purchased phone time from foreign vendors and resold the minutes to customers in the United States. One main vendor was Telecommunications D’Haiti (Teleco), which was an entity with ties to the Haitian government. Specifically, when Teleco was formed, it was granted a monopoly on telecommunications services; it had significant tax advantages; its Board of Directors had certain members appointed by the Haitian government; and the National Bank of Haiti owned 97 percent of Teleco. According to testimony adduced during trial, essentially everyone in Haiti considered Teleco a public administration.
The Eleventh Circuit explained that the FCPA prohibits any “domestic concern” from making use of the mail or any means of interstate commerce “corruptly in furtherance” of a bribe to any foreign official, or to any person, “while knowing that all or a portion of such money or thing of value will be offered, given, or promised, directly or indirectly, to any foreign official,” for the purpose of “influencing any act or decision of such foreign official . . . in order to assist such domestic concern in obtaining or retaining business for or with, or directing business to, any person.” 15 U.S.C. § 78dd-2(a)(1), (3). Foreign official is defined as any officer or employee of a foreign government, or any “department, agency, or instrumentality thereof.” 15 U.S.C. § 78dd-2(h)(2)(A). Finding that no other court of appeal has defined “instrumentality,” the Eleventh Circuit endeavored to do so.
The court began with the dictionary definitions of “instrumentality” and determined that the parties agree that “an instrumentality must perform a government function at the government’s behest.” Esquenazi at p. 11. But, according to the court, this does not provide a complete definition and so the court felt the need to dig deeper. Looking at the statutory company kept by the word “instrumentality,” the court found that words like “agency” and “department” are in the same statutory clause as “instrumentality.” As a result, an entity must be “under the control or dominion of the government to qualify as an ‘instrumentality’ within the FCPA’s meaning.” Esquenazi, at 13. Likewise, based on the statute’s context, “an instrumentality must be doing the business of the government.” Id. The question, then, is what will be considered the government’s business.
After a long explication of the United States’ ratification of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development’s Convention on Combatting Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions (OECD Convention), the Eleventh Circuit determined that the definition of “instrumentality” within the FCPA was intended to reach “the types of officials the United States agreed to stop domestic interests from bribing when it ratified the OECD Convention.” Esquenazi, at 18. Thus, the court declined to limit the definition – as advocated by defendants Esquenazi and Rodriguez – to entities that perform only traditional, core government functions. Instead, it determined that “the most objective way” to determine whether an instrumentality is one of a foreign government, “is to examine the foreign sovereign’s actions, namely, whether it treats the function the foreign entity performs as its own.” Esquenazi, at 19 (emphasis in original). The Eleventh Circuit thus defined an “instrumentality” as “an entity controlled by the government of a foreign country that performs a function the controlling government treats as its own.” Esquenazi, at 20.
Recognizing itself that this definition seems incomplete, the Eleventh Circuit then listed factors to consider when determining whether an entity is an instrumentality of a foreign government. The measure of control will be determined by looking at how the government designated the entity; whether the government has a majority interest in the entity; whether the government may hire and/or fire executives of the entity; whether any of the entity’s profits go to the government’s coffers; and how long these factors have existed. Consideration of the entity’s function will focus on whether the entity has a monopoly over the function it is tasked with carrying out; whether it receives government subsidies for providing its services; whether the entity provides services to the general public; and whether the government of the foreign country generally perceives the entity to be performing a government function. These are fact-based questions, and will depend on the entity at issue.
Applying this definition, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the defendants’ FCPA convictions. The jury instructions provided a sufficient basis for concluding that Teleco was an instrumentality of the Haitian government. Likewise, the evidence established that the government had satisfied the FCPA’s knowledge requirement because the defendants knew or had reason to know that the bribes paid would reach the hands of a foreign official. Lastly, the court dismissed the Haitian Prime Minister’s declaration – which defendants claimed constituted exculpatory material pursuant to Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S. Ct. 1194 (1963) – because the information was never in the hands of the prosecutor, so it was not required to be disclosed.
The takeaway from the Esquenazi case is that in attempting to clarify what constitutes an “instrumentality” for the purposes of the FCPA, the Eleventh Circuit provided a definition that still requires significant factual analysis and still prohibits payments to an entity acting as an arm of the government. Yet whether an entity will be considered an instrumentality of the government will still depend on local perceptions and a factual analysis that could put defendants in the crosshairs of enforcement with only slightly clearer guidance than they had before the Esquenazi decision. Businesses should continue to proceed with caution when doing business with entities that are not clearly private and that may be connected to, controlled by, or performing the functions of the government.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 78
 § 78
 § 78
 v.