Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/143/348/562701/
Timestamp: 2019-06-27 09:18:14
Document Index: 241923149

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1687', '§ 666', '§ 666', '§ 666', '§ 666', '§ 666', '§ 3231', '§ 666']

United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Robert A. Grossi, Defendant-appellant, 143 F.3d 348 (7th Cir. 1998) :: Justia
Justia › US Law › Case Law › Federal Courts › Courts of Appeals › Seventh Circuit › 1998 › United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Robert A. Grossi, Defendant-appellant
United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Robert A. Grossi, Defendant-appellant, 143 F.3d 348 (7th Cir. 1998)
US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit - 143 F.3d 348 (7th Cir. 1998)
Argued April 3, 1998. Decided May 4, 1998. Rehearing and Suggestion for Rehearing Denied May 29, 1998
Guzzo and Piscopo testified to this arrangement. Grossi asked the judge not to believe them. They submitted bogus bills to a welfare fund, cheating the Township's most needy residents; they lied to the FBI when asked about the subject and would not testify without immunity; they evaded income taxes on some of their receipts from the general assistance program; and the defense sought to persuade the judge that among the chiropractors' other sins was perjury about their relations with Grossi. The district judge allowed that he would not have found Guzzo's testimony, if uncorroborated, sufficient to show guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. But, the judge added, Guzzo's testimony was corroborated by Piscopo and by the facts that the bills were paid swiftly (unusual for a public agency) and without the documentation usually entailed. The judge wrote: " [T]here is no conceivable explanation for the miraculous payment of $23,000 or more in old bills for patients not qualified to receive general assistance unless Mr. Grossi was the wizard behind the curtain." Grossi wants us to treat the district judge's skepticism about the chiropractors' testimony as equivalent to disbelief, and to ask whether the corroborating circumstances prove bribery. But this is not how the district judge approached the issue. In the end, he believed Guzzo and Piscopo, not because they are upstanding citizens but because their tale rang true. That was his prerogative as trier of fact. The evidence in support of this criminal episode--and the others narrated by the district judge--was adequate and to spare.
Grossi sought a new trial, providing the district judge with additional evidence of the chiropractors' low ethical standards. Piscopo may have lied about an IRS investigation; the chiropractors did not deposit checks from the general assistance fund into the partnership's main bank account; the chiropractors have not made restitution of the funds they obtained illicitly. Ordinarily a motion for a new trial requires the district judge to make an estimate about how the newly discovered evidence would have affected the jury. But after a bench trial estimation is unnecessary. Judge Plunkett held a hearing, received the evidence, and revealed exactly how it affects the trier of fact: not at all. That conclusion is no more open to question than are the judge's basic findings of fact, and we therefore hold that the court did not abuse its discretion in denying the post-trial motion. See United States v. Fruth, 36 F.3d 649, 651-52 (7th Cir. 1994).
Congress has on occasion limited regulation to the specific activity that receives the federal money. For example, Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 cover the "program or activity" that receives federal money, which led the Supreme Court to hold that other programs conducted by the recipient were unaffected by the statute. Grove City College v. Bell, 465 U.S. 555, 104 S. Ct. 1211, 79 L. Ed. 2d 516 (1984). Section 666(b), by contrast, refers not to a "program or activity" but to the "organization, government, or agency". The difference is palpable. Four years after Grove City College Congress amended Title IX to require the entire entity receiving federal funds to abide by the statute's substantive rules. It did this through a new provision, 20 U.S.C. § 1687(1) (A), that defines the scope of coverage as "a department, agency, special purpose district, or other instrumentality of a State or of a local government" that receives federal funds. Section 3 of Pub. L. 100-259, 102 Stat. 28 (1988). No one doubts that this language eliminates the program-or-activity restriction of Grove City College. Just so with the language of § 666(b). See United States v. Coyne, 4 F.3d 100, 108-10 (2d Cir. 1993). It is not our part to trim § 666 by giving its text a crabbed reading. Salinas v. United States, --- U.S. ----, 118 S. Ct. 469, 139 L. Ed. 2d 352 (1997).
Now for Grossi's reliance on § 666(c), which carves out "bona fide salary, wages, fees, or other compensation paid, or expenses paid or reimbursed, in the usual course of business". According to the prosecutor, this language means that wages and normal reimbursements paid to a public official do not constitute bribes. According to Grossi, this language means that federal money used to pay wages or reimburse the government's normal expenses is excluded from the $10,000, and if what remains does not reach that figure then § 666 becomes inapplicable. We need not decide who is right, because Grossi did not make such an argument at trial and thus has not preserved the issue for decision on appeal. We don't know for sure what the federal funds were used for and therefore lack an adequate foundation for adjudication; perhaps the Township received $10,000 even if reimbursements of wages are excluded. What is more, there is no precedent on point, and the language does not clearly support Grossi. The prosecutor's position has at least collateral support from the holding of Salinas that § 666 applies even when the federal funds were not misspent or otherwise affected by the bribery. --- U.S. at ---- - ----, 118 S. Ct. at 473-75. Thus review for plain error would not aid Grossi even if the record were fully developed. He calls the subject "jurisdictional", in an effort to take advantage of the rule that jurisdictional defects may be noticed at any time, but the district court's subject-matter jurisdiction is supplied by 18 U.S.C. § 3231 and is secure. Just the other day the Supreme Court reminded us of the gulf that separates failure of a claim on the merits from lack of jurisdiction. Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment, --- U.S. ----, ----, 118 S. Ct. 1003, 1010, 140 L. Ed. 2d 210 (1998). Grossi has forfeited any reliance on § 666(c) as a defense.