Source: https://openjurist.org/894/f2d/1280
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 06:26:40+00:00

Document:
John R. Lawson, Jr., Aileen S. Davis, Stephen O. Decker, Lawson, mcWhirter, Grandoff & Reeves, Tampa, Fla., for defendant-appellant.
Terry A. Zitek, Asst. U.S. Atty., Tampa, Fla., for plaintiff-appellee.
Before KRAVITCH and CLARK, Circuit Judges, and ATKINS*, Senior District Judge.
Nelson Italiano, convicted of mail fraud, appeals from the denial of his motion to dismiss the indictment. Italiano seeks dismissal on the ground that the statute of limitations for bringing the indictment had expired before the indictment was returned. The district court found that the indictment was not barred by the statute of limitations because it alleged approximately the same facts as a previous indictment; therefore the previous indictment had given Italiano sufficient notice of the facts and charges against him. We affirm.
On May 22, 1985, a federal grand jury in the Middle District of Florida returned a forty-five count indictment against thirty persons and corporations in connection with a widespread bribery scheme in Hillsborough County, Florida.1 In Count IV of the indictment, Italiano was charged with a single count of mail fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1341. The gravamen of the charge was that Italiano had devised a scheme to defraud the citizens of the county of their right to the honest services of the Board of County Commissioners. Italiano moved to dismiss the indictment on the ground that the mail fraud statute was only intended to reach schemes designed to cause economic loss to the victims and not those schemes designed to deprive victims of their intangible right to good government. The district court denied that motion. Italiano's trial was severed from that of the other defendants, and in January of 1987, a jury found Italiano guilty of mail fraud.
In June of 1987, the Supreme Court decided McNally v. United States, 483 U.S. 350, 107 S.Ct. 2875, 97 L.Ed.2d 292 (1987), which held that 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1341 does not protect citizens from the fraudulent deprivation of intangible rights, but only from the fraudulent taking of money or property. On the basis of McNally, Italiano appealed his conviction to the Eleventh Circuit, and on February 22, 1988, a panel of this court reversed the conviction and vacated the judgment. The court found that Italiano's indictment was "fatally flawed" because it failed to allege that the victim of the scheme to defraud was deprived of money or property. United States v. Italiano, 837 F.2d 1480, 1483 (11th Cir.1988).
On August 18, 1988, less than six months after dismissal of the indictment, another federal grand jury returned a new mail fraud indictment against Italiano. This new indictment alleged that Italiano's participation in the bribery scheme defrauded the government of Hillsborough County of property in the form of a cable television franchise.
Italiano filed a motion to dismiss, alleging that the new indictment had been returned outside the five year statute of limitations for federal criminal offenses. The district court denied the motion. United States v. Italiano, 701 F.Supp. 205 (M.D.Fl.1988) and Italiano was again convicted for mail fraud.
Testimony at both trials focused on Italiano's role in a scheme to bribe the commissioners of Hillsborough County in order to obtain a cable television franchise for a company named Coaxial Communications of the Suncoast, Inc. ("Coaxial"). Coaxial was primarily interested in obtaining the cable franchise for the City of Tampa, Florida, but decided to establish a presence in the area by securing franchises in Hillsborough County. The Hillsborough County Board of County Commissioners had the final authority to award cable television franchise rights within the county. Italiano secured the support of County Commissioner Bean for Coaxial and introduced Bean to McGillicuddy, one of the owners of Coaxial. Bean and various other commissioners were given sums of money by Italiano and others in order to secure their support for Coaxial, and the contract between Coaxial and Hillsborough County was ratified in July of 1980. Apparently, McGillicuddy made it clear to Bean that he would sell the franchise if Coaxial failed in its efforts to obtain the Tampa franchise. Coaxial's efforts were in fact unsuccessful and McGillicuddy ultimately sold his franchise in Hillsborough County and left the area.
Except as otherwise expressly provided by law, no person shall be prosecuted, tried or punished for any offense, not capital, unless the indictment is found or the information is instituted within five years next after such offense shall have been committed.
In certain circumstances, the filing of an indictment may serve to toll the statute of limitations for purposes of filing a superseding or new indictment after the limitations period has expired.
A superseding indictment brought after the statute of limitations has expired is valid so long as the original indictment is still pending and was timely and the superseding indictment does not broaden or substantially amend the original charges. United States v. Grady, 544 F.2d 598, 602 (2d Cir.1976). See also, United States v. Edwards, 777 F.2d 644, 649 (11th Cir.1985); United States v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., Inc., 785 F.2d 777, 779 (9th Cir.1986); United States v. Friedman, 649 F.2d 199, 203-04 (3rd Cir.1981). For purposes of the statute of limitations, the "charges" in the superseding indictment are defined not simply by the statute under which the defendant is indicted, but also by the factual allegations that the government relies on to show a violation of the statute.
Notice to the defendant is the central policy underlying the statutes of limitation. If the allegations and charges are substantially the same in the old and new indictments, the assumption is that the defendant has been placed on notice of the charges against him. That is, he knows that he will be called to account for certain activities and should prepare a defense. See Grady, 544 F.2d at 601.
Whenever an indictment is dismissed for any error, defect, or irregularity with respect to the grand jury, or an indictment or information filed after the defendant waives in open court prosecution by indictment is found otherwise defective or insufficient for any cause, after the period prescribed by the applicable statute of limitations has expired, a new indictment may be returned in the appropriate jurisdiction within six calendar months of the date of the dismissal of the indictment or information, or, if no regular grand jury is in session in the appropriate jurisdiction when the indictment or information is dismissed, within six calendar months of the date when the next regular grand jury is convened, which new indictment shall not be barred by any statute of limitations.
18 U.S.C. Sec. 3288.3 The notice considerations that permit tolling in cases of superseding indictments apply in the case of new indictments as well. That is, the limitations period will only be tolled if the charges and allegations in the new indictment are substantially the same as those in the original indictment. The Ninth Circuit has held that the underlying concept of section 3288 is that if the defendant was first indicted within the limitations period, then "approximately the same facts may be used for the basis of any new indictment, if the earlier indictment runs into legal pitfalls." United States v. Charnay, 537 F.2d 341, 354 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 1000, 97 S.Ct. 527, 528, 50 L.Ed.2d 610 (1976) (emphasis added) (quoting Mende v. United States, 282 F.2d 881, 883-84 (9th Cir.1960), cert. denied, 364 U.S. 933, 81 S.Ct. 379, 5 L.Ed.2d 365 (1961)). In sum, an untimely indictment can only be saved by the section 3288 exception if it does not broaden or substantially amend the original charges "tolled" by the previous indictment.
In order to decide whether the charges and underlying facts in the two indictments returned against Italiano are sufficiently similar to provide him with notice, we must examine the language of those indictments.
Between in or about January, 1980 and in or about December, 1980, Nelson Italiano and others, corruptly offered, promised and gave Charles Frank Bean III and Robert E. Curry, public servants, and Charles Frank Bean III and Robert E. Curry, corruptly requested, solicited, agreed to accept and accepted, a benefit with an intent and purpose to influence an act which Nelson Italiano believed to be, and Charles Frank Bean III represented as being, within the official discretion of Charles Frank Bean III and Robert E. Curry relating to Cable Television Franchise Agreement No. 80-563, chargeable under Florida Statutes, Section 838.015 and an act of racketeering involving bribery as defined by Title 18, United States Code, Section 1961(1).
b. to have the business of the Board of County Commissioners, Hillsborough County, Florida, and its affairs conducted honestly and impartially, free from deceit, craft, trickery, corruption, fraud, undue influence, dishonesty, conflict of interest, unlawful obstruction and impairments and in accordance with the laws of the State of Florida and Hillsborough County.
The first and second indictments charge the same statutory violation, the same mailing in furtherance of the scheme, and the same underlying transaction for the bribe. The difference, as Italiano stresses, is in the objects of the schemes alleged in each indictment: the first alleges a scheme to deprive the county of good government, the second alleges a scheme to deprive the county of a cable television franchise. Italiano argues that, in keeping with these different objectives, the first indictment alleged "pure good government facts" while the second indictment alleged "money and property" facts. Accordingly, he states that the first indictment provided "good government notice" but did not provide "money and property notice."
Our finding that the alleged objectives of the scheme differ between the two indictments does not end our inquiry. For, in deciding whether the first indictment tolled the limitations period, the crucial inquiry is whether approximately the same facts were used as the basis of both indictments. If so, Italiano would have been put on notice within the limitations period of the charges on which he was ultimately convicted. In characterizing the facts of the first indictment as "good government facts" and the facts of the second indictment as "money and property facts," Italiano implies that the object of the scheme determines the nature of the facts underlying the scheme. We disagree. The facts are the sequence of actions that Italiano performed as part of a scheme to secure a television franchise for Coaxial. These facts are the same in both indictments.
Italiano relies heavily upon United States v. O'Neill, 463 F.Supp. 1205 (E.D.Pa.1979), to argue that the factual dissimilarity of the two indictments is fatal to the second indictment. O'Neill involved a defendant indicted under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1014 for making false statements in relation to an application for a loan at a federally insured bank in order to influence the bank to approve the loan. A superseding indictment was issued outside of the limitations period. Although both the original and superseding indictments were based on the same transaction, the O'Neill court dismissed the superseding indictment, finding that the indictments were not based on "approximately the same facts."
We agree with the district court that the present case can easily be distinguished from O'Neill. In O'Neill, the superseding indictment involved a different false statement from the two false statements described in the first indictment. The first indictment stated that O'Neill falsely represented to the bank that the insurance policies submitted as security for the loan were in full force and effect. The second indictment stated that O'Neill falsely represented to the bank that the insurance policies submitted as security had a future cash surrender value and that they had been assigned to him.
The O'Neill court found that "[t]he charge in the first indictment contains no mention of the specific misrepresentations charged in the second indictment. If anything, the first indictment would serve to draw the defendant's attention away from the misrepresentations alleged in the superseding bill." Id. at 1207. The court concluded that "[t]he original indictment therefore did not put the defendant on notice that he might face a revised indictment alleging two quite different misrepresentations." Id. at 1208.
Italiano seeks to support his assertion that the indictments are factually dissimilar by noting that the first indictment did not withstand McNally scrutiny, but the second one did. He argues that if the indictments were factually similar, as the government claims, then the first one would not have been dismissed. He implies that substantive notice could only have been achieved if the first indictment had alleged facts sufficient to allow it to be upheld under McNally. We disagree with Italiano's attempt to equate indictments invalid under McNally with indictments insufficient to toll the statute of limitations and note that at least two other courts have rejected the same argument.
In United States v. Lytle, 677 F.Supp. 1370 (N.D.Ill.1988), the court found that an indictment for mail fraud, dismissed on the basis of McNally, provided sufficient notice to the defendant to render a second indictment timely because each of the underlying factual allegations in the indictment was the same. Id. at 1377. The Lytle court held that the first indictment satisfied the notice requirement because only the form and not the substance of the claim had changed. Id. at 1376.
In sum, the court finds Italiano's attempt to distinguish between one type of notice that he terms "good government notice" and another type of notice that he terms "money and property notice" unavailing. Italiano was aware from the first indictment that he was on trial for his part in the scheme to bribe the commissioners to vote for Coaxial as the recipient of the cable television franchise. The only difference between the two indictments is the alleged objective of the scheme. This is not enough to deprive Italiano of notice and take the second indictment out of the section 3288 exception. Accordingly, the order of the district court denying Italiano's motion to dismiss the indictment is AFFIRMED.
Clearly the cable television franchise held by the County of Hillsborough for the people of that county to be awarded to some commercial entity is "property," and the attempt by appellant to secure the cable television franchise by bribery is a scheme to deprive the county and its people of that property.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.