United States v. Jennifer Juliet Gatling
321 U.S. App. D.C. 63, 96 F.3d 1511 (1996)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A single criminal conspiracy can be established by evidence demonstrating a common goal, interdependence among participants, and an overlap in participants and timing, even if the methods or specific targets vary. Statements made by co-conspirators in furtherance of the conspiracy are admissible if there is independent evidence of the conspiracy.
Facts:
- From 1989 to 1993, Jennifer Gatling worked as a Housing Specialist and Cheryl Walker as Chief (and later Acting Administrator) of the Section 8 Division of the District of Columbia’s Department of Public and Assisted Housing (DPAH), which administered federal Section 8 housing subsidies.
- Federal and D.C. regulations required Section 8 subsidies to be issued to D.C. residents who met income requirements and were on a wait list, with preferences based on need categories.
- Anthony Bufford contacted Walker to arrange a Section 8 subsidy for his former wife, Veronica Bufford, a Chicago resident, and Walker told him to contact Gatling for help with the application; Bufford later offered Walker $1,000, which he sent after Veronica received her voucher.
- Bufford subsequently contacted Walker to arrange a Section 8 subsidy for Camilla Perkins-Henry, also a Chicago resident, and Walker suggested Bufford make the $1,000 payment out to Gatling, which Perkins-Henry did.
- Darnell Jackson and Rodney Knight informed D.C. residents that Section 8 subsidies were available for $500, then drove them to DPAH where Gatling filled out paperwork and received the cash payments in exchange for the subsidies.
- Jackson was heard telling recipients that Gatling was 'splitting the money' with Walker, and Walker made significant unexplained cash deposits to her children's savings accounts during the period of the illegal subsidies.
- Walker asserted that she believed she was authorized to provide Section 8 subsidies to non-D.C. residents and those not on the wait list under a 10% discretionary allocation rule.
- A HUD expert, Linda Pistelli, testified that the 10% rule only exempted subsidies from higher preference category requirements, not from the residency or waitlist requirements.
Procedural Posture:
- On September 9, 1994, a grand jury charged Cheryl Walker and Jennifer Gatling with conspiracy to accept bribes, along with several counts of accepting bribes, mail fraud, and making false statements.
- Trial commenced on November 29, 1994, lasting over six weeks.
- At the close of the government's case, Walker moved for a judgment of acquittal on the conspiracy and substantive bribery counts, which the trial court initially denied.
- The trial court later granted Walker's renewed motion for judgment of acquittal regarding the substantive bribery counts involving D.C. residents at the close of all evidence.
- On January 18, 1995, a jury convicted Walker of conspiracy to accept bribes and one count of making false statements, while acquitting her on other counts and being unable to reach a verdict on one mail fraud count.
- On the same date, the jury convicted Gatling of conspiracy to accept bribes and four counts of accepting a bribe, acquitting her on all other counts.
- On May 30, 1995, Gatling received a 40-month jail sentence.
- On June 6, 1995, Walker received a 41-month jail sentence, with the district court adjusting her base offense level upward by 8 levels for being a high-level official.
- Walker and Gatling appealed their convictions to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit as appellants.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does sufficient evidence support the finding of a single conspiracy to commit bribery when distinct schemes, targeting different groups of individuals and employing varying methods, share a common purpose, overlapping participants, and concurrent timing?
Opinions:
Majority - Wald, Circuit Judge
Yes, the evidence was sufficient for the jury to find appellants guilty of engaging in a single conspiracy to commit bribery. The court affirmed the convictions, finding that the government presented ample evidence of an agreement between Gatling and Walker (and Jackson), including Jackson’s statement that Walker and Gatling were splitting bribe money, Walker’s referral of individuals to Gatling for illegal subsidies, and direct payments to Gatling. Regarding the single vs. multiple conspiracy argument, the court applied the 'common goal,' 'interdependence,' and 'overlap among participants' factors from United States v. Graham and United States v. Tarantino. It found that both the Chicago and D.C. schemes shared the common purpose of exchanging Section 8 subsidies for money, occurred during the same period (June 1991 - April 1992), and involved Walker and Gatling as main figures. While the schemes differed in modus operandi, their underlying objective was the same. Furthermore, the court found some interdependence, as exposure of one scheme could lead to the exposure of both. The court also determined that Jackson’s out-of-court statements were admissible against Walker as co-conspirator statements under Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)(E), citing Bourjaily v. United States, because there was sufficient independent evidence of a single conspiracy involving Walker and Jackson. The court found sufficient evidence to establish bribery, not merely gratuities, because Walker could be inferred to have acted with the expectation of payment, especially in the context of an ongoing scheme. The court upheld the admission of expert rebuttal testimony by Linda Pistelli as proper to refute Walker’s defense regarding the 10% rule. It found any error in admitting prior consistent statements to be harmlessly cumulative. The prosecutor's summation comments were not substantially prejudicial given curative instructions. The court also found no plain error in the lack of a multiple conspiracy jury instruction because the evidence strongly supported a single conspiracy. However, the court vacated Walker's conviction for making false statements due to the Supreme Court's intervening decision in United States v. Gaudin, which held that materiality in a false statements charge is a question for the jury, not the court. Finally, the court affirmed Walker's sentence enhancement, concluding that her position as Chief of the Section 8 Division qualified her as a high-level official under U.S.S.G. § 2C1.1(b)(2)(B).
Analysis:
This case reaffirms the D.C. Circuit's broad interpretation of what constitutes a 'single conspiracy' for purposes of conviction, emphasizing common purpose, participant overlap, and timing over precise uniformity of methods or victims. It highlights the importance of circumstantial evidence in proving conspiratorial agreements and the admissibility of co-conspirator statements under Rule 801(d)(2)(E) as long as independent evidence supports the conspiracy's existence. The decision also illustrates the application of the 'bribery vs. gratuity' distinction, underscoring that timing of payment is not determinative when an ongoing corrupt scheme implies an expectation of quid pro quo. Lastly, the Gaudin issue underscores the dynamic nature of legal precedent and its immediate impact on pending cases, particularly concerning jury roles in determining factual elements of a crime.
