Snyder v. United States, 603 U.S. ____ (2024)

[bob7947]

This case involves James Snyder, who is the former mayor of Portage, Indiana. In 2013, while Snyder was mayor, Portage awarded two contracts to a local truck company, Great Lakes Peterbilt, and ultimately purchased five trash trucks from the company for about $1.1 million. In 2014, Peterbilt cut a $13,000 check to Snyder.

The FBI and federal prosecutors suspected that the payment was a gratuity for the City’s trash truck contracts. But Snyder said that the payment was for his consulting services as a contractor for Peterbilt. A federal jury ultimately convicted Snyder of accepting an illegal gratuity in violation of 18 U. S. C. §666(a)(1)(B). The District Court sentenced Snyder to 1 year and 9 months in prison. On appeal, Snyder argued that 18 U. S. C. §666 criminalizes only bribes, not gratuities. The Seventh Circuit affirmed Snyder’s conviction.

On June 26, 2024, the U. S. Supreme Court Justices, Kavanaugh, Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Barrett. reversed the judgment of the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

Snyder v. United States, 603 U.S. ____ (2024)

[joel hoffman]

It seems that Congress, when it amended the original statute applying to state and local officials, did intend to differentiate between “rewards” to federal officials and state and local officials under a broad federal statute.

The government never established/proved that there was any action or agreement between Peterbilt and the mayor to establish a bribe or connected gratuity to influence the selection of Peterbilt.

State and local officials often receive gifts from the public or vendors. Why would the federal government define a uniform standard for post action gifts to non-federal employees when there are various non-federal standards or rules.

After the Air Force Academy, where Honor and Ethics were Hallmark principles, continuously taught and stressed, I noted that the active Air Force climate was less rigorous in general practice but still evident.

After active duty, I initially went to work for a City Government, where the standards for gifts was looser and where sponsored golf outings or other activities involving multiple public entities were common.

There were state laws governing proper behavior and interrelationships, not involving bribery to a degree.

But it appeared that Congress did not want to standardize such acts and prohibitions.

Granted, a $13,000 gift or payment to a local official sometime after contract awards looks suspicious. However, the federal prosecutors apparently didnt tie them to any pre-award actions. But the amended federal gratuity statute didn’t apply to the situation.

At least that is my viewpoint, partly based upon observations of local laws and widespread practices. 

 

 

[bob7947]

On 7/5/2024 at 8:51 AM, joel hoffman said:

Why would the federal government define a uniform standard for post action gifts to non-federal employees when there are various non-federal standards or rules.

One of the things I do before posting any press release on the Home Page is to check if it involved federal funds.  If it doesn't, I may not post it unless the case threatened the United States or it angers me for another reason.  

18 U.S. Code § 666 (a)(1)(b) states

Quote

(b) The circumstance referred to in subsection (a) of this section is that the organization, government, or agency receives, in any one year period, benefits in excess of $10,000 under a Federal program involving a grant, contract, subsidy, loan, guarantee, insurance, or other form of Federal assistance.

When you take funds from the federal government you follow the federal government's rules.  However, I think that $10,000 seems too low a threshold to be brought up on federal charges.  Maybe it should be $100,000 or much more.

18 U.S. Code § 666 (a)(1)(B) states

Quote

(a) corruptly solicits or demands for the benefit of any person, or accepts or agrees to accept, anything of value from any person, intending to be influenced or rewarded in connection with any business, transaction, or series of transactions of such organization, government, or agency involving any thing of value of $5,000 or more; or

I disagree with the opinion of the Court.  In my opinion, the law includes gratuities.  Again, look at the $5,000. I woud raise it to $50,000 at least and we would never have heard of Portage, Indiana.

Quote

The government never established/proved that there was any action or agreement between Peterbilt and the mayor to establish a bribe or connected gratuity to influence the selection of Peterbilt.

James Snyder was convicted by a federal jury,  On appeal, the 7th circuit upheld his conviction.

[joel hoffman]

11 hours ago, bob7947 said:

James Snyder was convicted by a federal jury,  On appeal, the 7th circuit upheld his conviction.

Then shouldn’t the crime have been “accepting a bribe”, not a gratuity?

[Neil Roberts]

3 hours ago, joel hoffman said:

Then shouldn’t the crime have been “accepting a bribe”, not a gratuity?

Discussion of bribe vs. gratuity https://criminallawdc.com/dc-fraud-lawyer/bribery/illegal-gratuity/

[joel hoffman]

10 minutes ago, Neil Roberts said:

Discussion of bribe vs. gratuity https://criminallawdc.com/dc-fraud-lawyer/bribery/illegal-gratuity/

The first four pages of the Decision explain the distinction, for state and local officials between accepting Bribes to perform an action and receiving a gift or gratuity sometime after the action. 

[Neil Roberts]

40 minutes ago, joel hoffman said:

The first four pages of the Decision explain the distinction, for state and local officials between accepting Bribes to perform an action and receiving a gift or gratuity sometime after the action. 

Yes, but for other readers looking to simplify, why read 4 pages to get a basic understanding of the two concepts. Also, it turned out that the difference between a bribe and a gratuity was irrelevant in that the decision holds that the federal law did not apply to the charge of gratuities to local or state officials. But it is an interesting decision that can peak ones interest and question it.   

[joel hoffman]

1 hour ago, Neil Roberts said:

Yes, but for other readers looking to simplify, why read 4 pages to get a basic understanding of the two concepts. Also, it turned out that the difference between a bribe and a gratuity was irrelevant in that the decision holds that the federal law did not apply to the charge of gratuities to local or state officials.    

Agree. That’s what I was originally trying to say.

And one doesn’t have to read four pages but I was  unable to “copy” the text on my phone that I wanted to quote .

Edit. See this from page five of the Decision:

“The question in this case is whether §666 also makes it a crime for state and local officials to accept gratuities-for example, gift cards, lunches, plaques, books, framed photos, or the like that may be given as a token of appreciation after the official act. The answer is no. State and local governments often regulate the gifts that state and local officials may accept. Section 666 does not supplement those state and local rules by subjecting 19 million state and local officials to up to 10 years in federal prison for accepting even commonplace gratuities. Rather, §666 leaves it to state and local governments to regulate gratuities to state and local officials.”

[bob7947]

Joel and Neil:

Thank you for participating in this discussion.

[joel hoffman]

17 hours ago, bob7947 said:

James Snyder was convicted by a federal jury,  On appeal, the 7th circuit upheld his conviction.

Bob, wasn’t Snyder convicted under the Federal gratuity law, which is the subject of the appeal?

It doesn’t appear that there was a prosecution for accepting a bribe nor was there any mention of proof of that type activity on the locally purchased fire trucks. . There was no prosecution in state courts for bribery or gratuity.

Edit: apparently Bob mentioned federal funding being involved here? 

 

Edited July 7, 2024 by joel hoffman

[bob7947]

Yes, he was convicted by a federal jury for accepting a gratuity.  He appealed his conviction and the conviction was upheld by a court in the 7th circuit.

I assume the firetrucks were federally funded or partially federally funded.  Again, I assume that prosecutors used the gratuity provision to convict him because they didn't have enough to convict him of bribery.  I am not aware of any state court that went after him for either bribery or gratuity.

This is a 10-year old case from Northern Indiana.  The Chicago papers did cover the case but they want users to pay for a view.  

This was about $13,000.  As I mentioned, I believe the threshold for making this federal is too low.  

[joel hoffman]

Bob, I reread and reread the decision looking for a connection to federal funds. I found that the only stated nexus is application to any jurisdiction “[that]receives more than $10,000 in federal funds per year”. 
 
It didn’t specifically mention any federal funding for the purchase did it? 

“Section 666(a)(1)(B) provides:

"Whoever ... being an agent of an organization, or of a State, local, or Indian tribal government, or any agency thereof [that receives more than $10,000 in federal funds annually] corruptly solicits or demands for the benefit of any person, or accepts or agrees to accept, anything of value from any person, intending to be influenced or rewarded in connection with [ANY] business, transaction, or series of transactions of such organization, government, or agency involving any thing of value of $5,000 or more”; ... shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both."

And the maximum confinement penalty for an improper gratuity to a non-federal employee would be five times (10 years) greater than the confinement for a gratuity to a federal employee (2 years) if the statute were interpreted to include gratuities to non-federal employees. To me that would be ridiculous.

[formerfed]

Joel and Bob,

FEMA provides grants for firefighting equipment.  That may be where the funding to purchase came from, either in part or all.

https://www.fema.gov/grants/preparedness/firefighters/assistance-grants

[bob7947]

Here is a bunch of stuff from SCOTUS.  Maybe you can find where the money came from.  Also, why is it in federal court before a federal jury prosecuted by a federal prosecutor, etc.  

Snyder Docket

During the one year period ending October 2016, the City of Portage, Indiana, received benefits in excess of $10,000 under a Federal Program involving a grant, contract, subsidy, loan, or other form of Federal assistance.  p. 1.

 

[Neil Roberts]

2 hours ago, bob7947 said:

Also, why is it in federal court before a federal jury prosecuted by a federal prosecutor, etc.

My take is federal money + federal law = federal prosecutor, federal court

[joel hoffman]

Ok, so the Feds can possibly prosecute him for accepting a bribe if they can prove it. The SCOTUS remanded the judgement of the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.

The former mayor is probably broke by now due to legal defense costs…

[joel hoffman]

I read the Snyder Docket that Bob provided the link to above at https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-108/299752/20240205125638057_Snyder Joint Appendix.pdf

It appears that Mayor Snyder was prosecuted for soliciting and accepting a bribe(a) from  the owners of a Peterbilt dealership for the purchase of two sanitation trucks for the City of Portage, Indiana.

In addition, there were indictments for other bribes or gratuities.

I didn’t see where the link includes the outcome of the case concerning the Peterbilt trucks.

There were several days of testimony concerning the alleged nature of payments to Snyder for various alleged consulting services as well as interactions and communications between the parties.

Im not a lawyer.  

[Vern Edwards]

Well, the Supreme Court is what it is, whatever that is today. And Congress has written lots of laws that became litigation factories.

If you are a contract specialist, a contracting officer, or a contracting officer's representative who did some business with a contractor, and it brings or sends you a gift𑁋in my day it might have been a company calendar with cool photos of aircraft, ships, launch vehicles, or spacecraft, or a Cross ballpoint pen with a company or program logo𑁋you are effectively accepting a tip. Who receives tips? Servants.

In negotiating the deal did you think of yourself as a serving the contractor or as performing a professional task for the United States?

Don't accept ANYTHING from a contractor as thanks for being cooperative or helpful in doing a deal𑁋not a calendar, not a pen, and not a "consulting" job, not if you have even just a modicum of professional pride.

[C Culham]

On 7/8/2024 at 6:43 AM, Vern Edwards said:

Well, the Supreme Court is what it is, whatever that is today. And Congress has written lots of laws that became litigation factories.

If you are a contract specialist, a contracting officer, or a contracting officer's representative who did some business with a contractor, and it brings or sends you a gift𑁋in my day it might have been a company calendar with cool photos of aircraft, ships, launch vehicles, or spacecraft, or a Cross ballpoint pen with a company or program logo𑁋you are effectively accepting a tip. Who receives tips? Servants.

In negotiating the deal did you think of yourself as a serving the contractor or as performing a professional task for the United States?

Don't accept ANYTHING from a contractor as thanks for being cooperative or helpful in doing a deal𑁋not a calendar, not a pen, and not a "consulting" job, not if you have even just a modicum of professional pride.

Thank you!