US v. Inzunza, No. 05-50902

In an honest services fraud prosecution involving two former San Diego City Council members, one defendant's convictions are affirmed where: 1) the district court did not err by basing the denial of defendant's motion for acquittal on the statements of co-conspirators; 2) there was sufficient evidence to find a quid pro quo relationship between defendant's promised actions and the political contributions at issue; and 3) private gain is not an element of honest services fraud.  The grant of the other defendant's motions for acquittal and new trial are also affirmed where the evidence did not permit a finding of a quid pro quo relationship beyond a reasonable doubt with respect to that defendant because there was neither an explicit promise nor a connection of a campaign promise to a contribution.

Read US v. Inzunza, No. 05-50902

Appellate Information

Argued June 3, 2008

Submitted August 26, 2009

Judges

Opinion by Judge Canby

Counsel

For Appellant:

Demetra Lambros, Attorney, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC

For Appellees:

Benjamin L. Coleman, Coleman & Balogh, LLP, San Diego, CA

Dennis P. Riordan, Riordan & Horgan, San Francisco, CA