Opinion ID: 515723
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Sufficiency of the evidence regarding the attempted bribery of public officials.

Text: 10 Armone and Gallo contend that there was insufficient evidence relating to the bribing of public officials to support either a conviction on substantive bribery charges, or a finding that bribery constituted a predicate act to a pattern of racketeering. They argue that because the government did not prove the existence of a federal official to whom bribes were actually paid, proof that payment was made to a connection in Washington was not sufficient to prove the intent to bribe a public official. [A] defendant who contends that the evidence was insufficient to convict him bears a very heavy burden. United States v. Pedroza, 750 F.2d 187, 198 (2d Cir.1984). In determining the sufficiency of evidence to support a conviction, a reviewing court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the government[,] ... credit every inference that could have been drawn in the government's favor, and uphold the conviction if, from the inference reasonably drawn, the jury might fairly have concluded that the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. United States v. Walker, 835 F.2d 983, 987 (2d Cir.1987) (citations omitted). 11 Whether or not there was a federal official to whom bribes were actually paid is not determinative of the issue of intent. As we have stated, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 201(b) makes attempted bribery a crime, and so long as a bribe is 'offered or promised' with the requisite intent 'to influence any official act' the crime is committed. United States v. Jacobs, 431 F.2d 754, 760 (2d Cir.1970) (emphasis in original), cert. denied, 402 U.S. 950, 91 S.Ct. 1613, 29 L.Ed.2d 120 (1971). To find such intent, the public official who is the target of the bribe need not be aware of the bribe, United States v. Johnson, 621 F.2d 1073, 1076 (10th Cir.1980), and, in fact, need not even exist. See United States v. Rosner, 485 F.2d 1213, 1216 (2d Cir.1973) (affirming conviction where defendant attempted to funnel money to fictitious official), cert. denied, 417 U.S. 950, 94 S.Ct. 3080, 41 L.Ed.2d 672 (1974). Armone and Gallo argue that payment of money to a contact in Washington could easily be understood to mean payment to a lobbyist or attorney. Evidence at trial, however, showed that defendants talked in codes, covered their paper trail, and otherwise went to great lengths to keep secret their payments to a connection to buy such favors as the transfer of federal prisoners. Based on this evidence, a rational jury could fairly have concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that Armone and Gallo intended to bribe a public official. 12