United States v. Joseph M. Margiotta
11 Fed. R. Serv. 727, 688 F.2d 108, 74 A.L.R. Fed. 139 (1982)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A private individual who does not hold public office but who exercises substantial de facto control over governmental operations owes a fiduciary duty to the citizenry. The breach of this duty through a fraudulent scheme, such as a secret kickback arrangement, can serve as the basis for a federal mail fraud conviction.
Facts:
- Joseph M. Margiotta was the Chairman of the Republican Committees of Nassau County and the Town of Hempstead, but held no elected public office.
- Margiotta exercised substantial control over elected officials, influencing appointments to government positions, including the municipal 'Broker of Record' for insurance.
- In 1968, Margiotta met with Richard B. Williams and arranged for the Williams Agency to be appointed Broker of Record for the Town of Hempstead.
- This appointment was based on a secret agreement that the Williams Agency would 'kick back' 50% of its commissions to be distributed to insurance brokers and other individuals designated by Margiotta.
- In 1971, Margiotta secured the Williams Agency's appointment as Broker of Record for Nassau County under the same kickback arrangement.
- Between 1969 and 1978, the Williams Agency paid out over $500,000 in kickbacks to Margiotta's political allies, lawyers, friends, and Margiotta himself, many of whom performed no legitimate work for the payments.
- To conceal the scheme, recipients of the kickbacks were later directed to prepare fictitious property inspection reports to create the appearance that they were legitimately earning their commissions.
Procedural Posture:
- A federal grand jury indicted Joseph Margiotta on one count of mail fraud and five counts of extortion.
- Margiotta's first trial in the U.S. District Court ended in a hung jury, prompting the judge to declare a mistrial.
- Prior to the second trial, the government appealed certain of the trial judge's anticipated evidentiary and jury instruction rulings to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the evidentiary rulings and dismissed the appeal regarding the jury instructions.
- At the conclusion of the second trial, a jury in the U.S. District Court convicted Margiotta on all six counts.
- Margiotta (appellant) appealed the judgment of conviction to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, against the United States (appellee).
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 a political party leader who holds no public office, but who exercises de facto control over governmental decisions, owe a fiduciary duty to the public, such that a breach of that duty through a secret kickback scheme can constitute a violation of the federal mail fraud statute?
Opinions:
Majority - Kaufman, J.
Yes. A political party leader who exercises de facto control over governmental decisions owes a fiduciary duty to the public, and a breach of that duty can violate the federal mail fraud statute. The mail fraud statute's prohibition on schemes to defraud of 'intangible rights,' such as the right to good government, is not limited to public officeholders. A fiduciary duty can arise from a relationship of dominance and reliance, where an individual in fact makes governmental decisions. The evidence showed Margiotta had a 'stranglehold' on the governments of Nassau County and the Town of Hempstead, controlling appointments and personnel decisions, thereby undertaking the business of government. This de facto control created a fiduciary duty to the public, which he breached by orchestrating the secret kickback scheme and failing to disclose it. This application of the statute targets a specific, corrupt agreement and does not unconstitutionally infringe on protected First Amendment activities like lobbying or political association.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Winter, J.
No. The majority's holding improperly expands the mail fraud statute into a limitless, catch-all prohibition of political disingenuousness that goes far beyond any congressional intent. This decision creates a vague 'political crime' based on a failure to disclose, which could be applied to common political practices, such as making campaign promises or partisan appointments. Transferring the complex law of private fiduciaries to the partisan political arena is an error that creates an undefined legal standard amounting to little more than 'sixth grade civics classes.' This broad interpretation chills First Amendment rights and dangerously empowers federal prosecutors with an unchecked tool for selective, politically motivated prosecutions, which poses a greater threat to democracy than the defendant's conduct.
Analysis:
This decision significantly expanded the 'intangible rights' theory of mail fraud by applying it to a private citizen who was not a de jure public official. It established the principle that de facto control over governmental functions, rather than merely holding formal office, is sufficient to create a fiduciary duty to the public. This precedent opened the door for prosecutors to target powerful political bosses and other influential private actors for public corruption. The ruling blurs the line between legitimate political influence and criminal fraud, a tension highlighted by the dissent's strong concerns about vagueness, prosecutorial overreach, and the chilling of political speech.
