Opinion ID: 873505
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Bribery Absent a Quid Pro Quo

Text: Munchak states that the District Court erred in its jury instructions regarding the bribery charge against Munchak, brought under 18 U.S.C. § 666. Munchak did not object to this instruction before the District Court, and we review it for plain error. See Dobson, 419 F.3d at 236. The District Court instructed the jury that it could convict under this statute if the jury found that Munchak accepted payment “with the intent to be influenced or rewarded.” 3 JA 931. Munchak states this is error because while “influence” refers to bribery, the “reward” language refers to acceptance of gratuities. As Munchak was charged with bribery under § 666, the Court’s instructions should not have included the “reward” language. Under plain error review, however, we see no reason to resolve this issue. Even if the District Court erred, Munchak has not demonstrated that the error substantially affected his rights. Munchak points to no evidence offered at trial that 3 The section of the instructions including the “ability to” language refers to the inducement issue resolved in Evans: The government need not prove that Munchak induced payment with anything other than his governmental authority. See Evans, 504 U.S. at 268. 4 Munchak states that the District Court plainly erred in not requiring an explicit quid pro quo exchange under the Hobbs Act. Munchak concedes that this argument is foreclosed by existing Third Circuit precedent. Munchak Br. at 22; see United States v. Bradley, 173 F.3d 225, 231-32 (3d Cir. 1999). We see no need to disturb this precedent. 6 allowed the jury to convict him on a gratuity, rather than a bribery, theory. Witnesses from Highland testified that they paid Munchak, not as a reward for past actions, but because they did not want to lose future contracts, wanted to ensure they were paid the money that was still owed to them for current contracts, and did not want issues to arise on current projects. Munchak has the burden of showing that any alleged error substantially affected his rights, that is, affected the outcome of the District Court proceedings. See Olano, 507 U.S. at 734. He has not met this burden.5