United States v. Evans
Not available in text (2025)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
To satisfy the jurisdictional 'benefits' element of 18 U.S.C. § 666, the government must present specific evidence detailing the structure, operation, and purpose of the federal program providing funds to the organization; merely identifying a grant's name, amount, and duration is insufficient.
Facts:
- Richard Evans was a Captain in the Boston Police Department (BPD) and commander of the Evidence Control Unit (ECU).
- The BPD had a 'purge overtime' policy allowing ECU officers to work extra four-hour shifts from 4:00 PM to 8:00 PM to clear old evidence.
- BPD policy, as stated on overtime slips, required officers to report 'Actual Hours Worked,' and payment was generally hour-by-hour unless a specific code for 'recall' or 'court time' was used to grant a four-hour minimum.
- The purge overtime shifts used a code that paid for actual hours worked, not a four-hour minimum.
- Under Evans' command, ECU officers, including Evans himself, regularly worked less than four hours on purge overtime shifts, often leaving by 6:00 PM.
- Despite working fewer hours, Evans and his subordinates submitted overtime slips claiming they worked the full four hours from 4:00 PM to 8:00 PM.
- Evans reviewed and approved his subordinates' overtime slips, which he knew falsely claimed four hours of work, in addition to submitting his own false slips.
- During the period of the false overtime claims, the BPD received funds from federal grants, including a 'Boston Community-based Violence Prevention Grant' and a 'VAWA STOP Grant.'
Procedural Posture:
- A federal grand jury indicted Richard Evans on charges including federal programs theft, conspiracy to commit federal programs theft, wire fraud, and conspiracy to commit wire fraud.
- After a five-day trial in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, a jury convicted Evans on all counts.
- The district court sentenced Evans to one year and one day of incarceration, a fine, and restitution.
- Evans, as appellant, appealed his convictions to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, arguing against the sufficiency of the evidence for the § 666 charges and other trial court errors.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Did the government present sufficient evidence to prove that the Boston Police Department received over $10,000 in 'benefits' from a federal program, as required for a conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 666, by merely identifying the names and amounts of federal grants?
Opinions:
Majority - Lynch, Circuit Judge
No. To satisfy the jurisdictional 'benefits' element of 18 U.S.C. § 666, the government must provide evidence of the federal program's structure, operation, and purpose, which it failed to do. For the 'Community-based Violence Prevention Grant,' the government only provided its name, amount, and duration, which is 'plainly insufficient.' For the 'VAWA STOP Grant,' testimony that it supported salaries for 'domestic violence advocates' was also inadequate, as it offered no information about the program's structure, operation, or purpose and did not explain how it constituted a 'benefit' under the standard set in Fischer v. United States. Merely identifying grants without explaining their substance does not meet the statutory requirement. Therefore, the § 666 convictions are vacated, while the wire fraud convictions are affirmed as they were supported by the evidence, including the appropriateness of a willful blindness instruction.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces and clarifies the evidentiary standard required to prove the 'benefits' element of 18 U.S.C. § 666. It serves as a caution to prosecutors that they cannot rely on the mere existence or name of a federal grant to establish jurisdiction for a § 666 charge. The court's application of the Fischer test demands a detailed showing of how federal funds 'guard, aid, or promote well-being,' preventing the statute from becoming an all-purpose tool against any fraud in an organization that receives federal money. This holding will require the government in future § 666 cases to present more specific testimony or documentary evidence about the substantive purpose and operation of the underlying federal programs.
