Attorneys For Mark Ridley-Thomas File Motion For New Trial
Attorneys For Mark Ridley-Thomas File Motion For New Trial
1 TABLE OF CONTENTS
2
I. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................ 1
3 II. TRIAL .............................................................................................................. 1
4 III. ARGUMENT ................................................................................................... 2
5 A. Legal Standards ...................................................................................... 2
1. Motion for a New Trial ................................................................ 2
6 2. Harmless Error and Plain Error ................................................... 2
7 B. Discussion .............................................................................................. 3
8 1. Multiple Errors Infected the Jury’s Deliberations and ................ 4
C. Argument That Section 666 Included Gratuities Was Inaccurate
9 Statement of Law. ................................................................................ 17
10 D. Cumulative Errors Deprived Dr. Ridley-Thomas of His Right to a
Fair Trial............................................................................................... 23
11 E. The Government Did Not Meet the Evidentiary Threshold for
“Thing of Value” Under Section 666................................................... 24
12 F. Evidentiary Deficiencies, As Identified in the Rule 29 Motion,
13 Justify a New Trial. .............................................................................. 24
IV. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 25
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DEFENDANT MARK RIDLEY-THOMAS’S
RULE 33 MOTION i
Case 2:21-cr-00485-DSF Document 360 Filed 05/01/23 Page 4 of 33 Page ID #:8941
1 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
2
Page(s)
3
Cases
4
Fiore v. White,
5
531 U.S. 225 (2001) ........................................................................................... 22
6
McDonnell v. United States,
7 579 U.S. 550 (2016) ........................................................................................... 16
8
Morris v. YLST,
9 447 F.3d 735 (9th Cir. 2006) ................................................................................ 5
10 Napue v. Illinois,
11 360 U.S. 264 (1959) ............................................................................................. 5
12 Pantano v. Donat,
No. 3:08-cv-00685-ECR-VPC, 2012 WL 3929515 (D. Nev. Sept. 7,
13
2012) ................................................................................................................... 14
14
Skilling v. United States,
15 561 U.S. 358 (2010) ........................................................................................... 17
16
United States v. Alston,
17 974 F.2d 1206 (9th Cir. 1992) ........................................................................ 2, 25
18 United States v. Atcheson,
19 94 F.3d 1237 (9th Cir. 1996) ................................................................................ 3
20 United States v. Brown,
21 327 F.3d 867 (9th Cir. 2003) ................................................................................ 3
1 I. INTRODUCTION
2 Under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 33, a trial court may vacate
3 judgment and grant a new trial “if the interest of justice so requires.” For the
4 reasons stated below, the Court should do so here.
5 II. TRIAL
6 Dr. Ridley Thomas was charged with nineteen counts: (i) conspiracy; (ii)
7 bribery under (iii) two counts of honest services mail fraud; and (iv) fifteen counts
8 of honest services wire fraud. Dkt. 1. During trial, after Agent Adkins testified, the
9 defense moved for a mistrial or, in the alternative, cautionary instruction. Dkt. 256.
10 The Court did not rule on this motion. Shortly after the close of the government’s
11 case, Dr. Ridley-Thomas filed a Rule 29 Motion. Dkt. 257. The Court took the
12 motion under submission. Declaration of Daralyn J. Durie, Ex. A “Trial Tr.” at
13 2112:3-5.1
14 After closing arguments, the jury deliberated over the course of five days,
15 and, during that time, asked nearly a dozen questions. One of those questions
16 concerned the evidence presented at trial (the jury asked that the testimony of
17 defense expert Ann Ravel be read back in full, Dkt. 288), and other questions
18 sought clarification about the law (for example, the jury asked, “Is violating
19 fiduciary duty in and of itself unlawful,” Dkt. 291).
20 The jury ultimately found Dr. Ridley-Thomas not guilty of twelve counts of
21 mail and wire honest services fraud counts and guilty of conspiracy, bribery, and
22 five counts of honest services mail and wire fraud counts. Dkt. 308. The only
23 honest services mail and wire fraud counts on which the jury convicted Dr. Ridley-
24 Thomas were Counts Five, Fifteen, Sixteen, Nineteen, and Twenty, which
25 concerned: (i) Dr. Ridley-Thomas’s response to Dean Flynn’s February 23, 2018
26 email concerning the 2018 Telehealth Contract amendment; (ii) the $100,000
27
1
28 All exhibits cited herein are filed concurrently with the Durie Declaration.
DEFENDANT MARK RIDLEY-THOMAS’S
RULE 33 MOTION 1
Case 2:21-cr-00485-DSF Document 360 Filed 05/01/23 Page 9 of 33 Page ID #:8946
1 donation from the Mark Ridley-Thomas Committee for a Better Los Angeles to the
2 University of Southern California (“USC”); and (iii) the $100,000 donation from
3 USC to United Ways of California (“United Ways”). Id.; Dkt. 1.
4 The defense addresses additional relevant facts in the argument below.
5 III. ARGUMENT
6 A. Legal Standards
7 1. Motion for a New Trial
8 The Court has discretion to grant a new trial in the interests of justice.
9 United States v. Pimentel, 654 F.2d 538, 545 (9th Cir. 1981). The Court’s power to
10 grant a Rule 33 motion for a new trial is “much broader” than its power to grant a
11 motion for a judgment of acquittal under Rule 29. United States v. Alston, 974 F.2d
12 1206, 1211 (9th Cir. 1992). On a motion for a new trial under Rule 33, the court is
13 “not obliged to view the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, and it is
14 free to weigh the evidence and evaluate for itself the credibility of the witnesses.”
15 United States v. Kellington, 217 F.3d 1084, 1097 (9th Cir. 2000) (citation omitted).
16 Even with an “abstract sufficiency of the evidence to sustain a verdict,” a court may
17 grant a motion for a new trial if “the evidence preponderates sufficiently heavily
18 against the verdict that a serious miscarriage of justice may have occurred.” Alston,
19 974 F.2d at 1211-12 (citation omitted). A single significant error can be sufficient
20 to warrant a new trial, and multiple errors can cumulatively result in manifest
21 injustice, warranting a new trial. See United States v. Frederick, 78 F.3d 1370,
22 1381 (9th Cir. 1996) (citations omitted). A criminal defendant is more likely to be
23 prejudiced by the effect of cumulative errors where the government’s case lacks
24 overwhelming evidence of guilt. See id. (citations omitted).
25 2. Harmless Error and Plain Error
26 Where defense counsel’s objection during trial is overruled, the court reviews
27 for harmless error. Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(a). If the court determines its previous
28 ruling was a constitutional error, the court must reverse unless the error was
DEFENDANT MARK RIDLEY-THOMAS’S RULE 33
2
MOTION
Case 2:21-cr-00485-DSF Document 360 Filed 05/01/23 Page 10 of 33 Page ID #:8947
1 harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. United States v. Perlaza, 439 F.3d 1149,
2 1171 (9th Cir. 2004) (citation omitted). If the court determines the previous ruling
3 was a non-constitutional error, the court must reverse unless “it is more probable
4 than not that the error did not materially affect the verdict.” Id. (citation omitted).
5 Where the defense has not objected to misconduct during trial, the court
6 reviews for plain error. Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(b); United States v. Rodriquez-
7 Preciado, 399 F.3d 1118, 1132 (9th Cir. 2005). Plain error that affects substantial
8 rights “may be considered even though [they were] not brought to the court’s
9 attention.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(b). The defendant has the burden to persuade the
10 court that a “plain error” was prejudicial. Olano, 507 U.S. at 734.
11 Under either analysis, the error is substantial or prejudicial where it affected
12 the outcome of the district court proceedings. Id.
13 B. Discussion
14 A court should evaluate alleged prosecutorial misconduct and other errors in
15 the context of the entire trial. United States v. Cabrera, 201 F.3d 1243, 1246 (9th
16 Cir. 2000) (citations omitted). A new trial is justified if it appears more probable
17 than not that the errors materially affect the trial’s fairness, denying the defendant
18 due process. Id.; United States v. Atcheson, 94 F.3d 1237, 1244 (9th Cir. 1996). A
19 court considers several factors when evaluating the trial’s fairness in light of
20 misconduct: (i) the nature of the prosecutor’s remarks and conduct; (ii) the strength
21 of the case against the defendant; and (iii) the nature of effectiveness of curative
22 instruction or action. United States v. Weatherspoon, 410 F.3d 1142, 1150-51 (9th
23 Cir. 2005); United States v. Brown, 327 F.3d 867, 871 (9th Cir. 2003).
24 Here, in light of the closeness of the case, the multiple instances of
25 misconduct, the lack of curative instructions, and the misstatements of the law,
26 Dr. Ridley-Thomas was deprived of his right to a fair trial.
27
28
DEFENDANT MARK RIDLEY-THOMAS’S RULE 33
3
MOTION
Case 2:21-cr-00485-DSF Document 360 Filed 05/01/23 Page 11 of 33 Page ID #:8948
1 Thomas had pressured him to support the amendment. Moreover, this testimony
2 was the only evidence Dr. Sherin was anything other than fully supportive of the
3 2018 Telehealth amendment. Agent Adkins’s false statements therefore created the
4 only pathway for the jury to infer that support for the Telehealth amendment was
5 not genuine, which bears directly on Dr. Ridley-Thomas’s intent.
6 Further, Agent Adkins’s false testimony that Dr. Ridley-Thomas and his staff
7 threatened to cancel or rescind contracts bears directly on whether Dr. Ridley-
8 Thomas’s support of county items was corrupt, the implication being that the
9 threats were designed to pressure USC to do as Dr. Ridley-Thomas’s office wished.
10 There is also a reasonable likelihood that this false testimony affected the outcome.
11 Each of these false statements “polluted” the jury’s deliberations. See
12 LaPage, 231 F.3d at 492 (“All perjury pollutes a trial, making it hard for jurors to
13 see the truth.”). This is particularly so where the false statements came from the
14 government’s mouthpiece and where no curative instruction was given. The false
15 testimony pertained directly to Dr. Ridley-Thomas’s state of mind, of which the
16 government had, at best, scant evidence. Accordingly, Dr. Ridley-Thomas’s
17 conviction “cannot stand.” See id.
18 c. The Government Improperly Vouched for Agent
Adkins and Elicited Improper Testimony Concerning
19 Agent Adkins’s Opinion of Dr. Ridley-Thomas’s Guilt.
20 Vouching is “placing the prestige of the government behind a witness”
21 through “personal assurances of the witness’s veracity, or suggesting that
22 information not presented to the jury supports the witness’s testimony.” United
23 States v. Weatherspoon, 410 F.3d 1142, 1146 (9th Cir. 2005) (citations omitted).
24 Vouching is prohibited for good reason: “[T]he prosecutor’s opinion carries with it
25 the imprimatur of the Government and may induce the jury to trust the
26 Government’s judgment rather than its own view of the evidence.” Id. at 1147-48.
27 A prosecutor therefore has “no business telling the jury his individual impressions
28 of the evidence.” United States v. Kerr, 981 F.2d 1050, 1053 (9th Cir. 1992).
DEFENDANT MARK RIDLEY-THOMAS’S RULE 33
7
MOTION
Case 2:21-cr-00485-DSF Document 360 Filed 05/01/23 Page 15 of 33 Page ID #:8952
1 Moreover, lay witnesses may not testify about their subjective interpretations of
2 evidence. United States v. Cox, 633 F.2d 871, 875 (9th Cir. 1980).
3 Agent Adkins was the government’s star witness: He testified over the
4 course of three days, and his testimony touched nearly every material factual issue
5 in the case. But his testimony was not limited to the facts. He impermissibly
6 opined both on the law and on Dr. Ridley-Thomas’s guilt, and he did so at the
7 prompting of the government. For instance2:
8 BY MS. DOTSON:
9 Q. …Hypothetically speaking, if the defendant had supported
every single agenda item we’ve been talking about here for a
10 hundred years, would you have stopped your investigation?
11 A. Of course not.
Q. Hypothetically speaking, if telehealth or probation were
12 literally the best things for the community, would you have
13 stopped your investigation?
A. No.
14 Q. Why not?
15 A. Just because –
MS. DURIE: I’m going to object. It calls for a legal conclusion
16 –
17 THE COURT: Well, don’t –
MS. DURIE: -- and speculation.
18
THE COURT: -- give us a legal conclusion.
19 MS. DURIE: It also calls for speculation.
THE COURT: Well –
20
MS. DOTSON: May I be heard, Your Honor?
21 THE COURT: -- I don’t think anybody really believes there was
a hundred years involved, so just answer the question.
22
BY MS. DOTSON:
23 Q. Why would you have not stopped your investigation if any of
those things had been true?
24
A. Because the evidence showed that despite his support --
25 despite the defendant’s support of these programs and despite
26
2
27 Additional examples include: Trial Tr. at 1463:4-17; 1921:9-20 1928:24-1929:7;
1931:3-12; 1938:2-9; 1939:4-13; 1940:4-15; 1952:18-24; 1953:4-24; 1958:15-19;
28 1961:18-1962:7; 1980:3-1981:1.
DEFENDANT MARK RIDLEY-THOMAS’S RULE 33
8
MOTION
Case 2:21-cr-00485-DSF Document 360 Filed 05/01/23 Page 16 of 33 Page ID #:8953
1 as manufactured); see also United States v. Washington, 263 F. Supp. 2d 413, 434–
2 35 (D. Conn.), adhered to on reconsideration, 294 F. Supp. 2d 246 (D. Conn. 2003)
3 prosecutor may not “characterize a defense as ‘fabricated’[.]”) (citation omitted).
4 (ii) Prosecutors—Multiple Times—Improperly
Injected Personal Opinions Into Closing and
5 Rebuttal.
6 As explained above, vouching is “dangerous” because the jury may “give
7 weight to the prosecutor’s opinion” instead of exercising its “independent
8 judgment.” Weatherspoon, 410 F.3d at 1147 (citation omitted). For this reason,
9 prosecutors are afforded leeway for rhetorical flourishes in closing argument only
10 to the extent they draw upon evidence in the record. It is improper for an attorney
11 to inject personal opinions into argument. United States v. Preston, 845 Fed. App’x
12 526, 530 (9th Cir. 2021); Weatherspoon, 410 F.3d at 1147 n.3. Even so, the
13 government repeatedly interjected its opinions of the case into their closing:
14 x “The one thing he didn’t see was any other document, letter, email, where in
15 one single document or email it was put together anything regarding benefits
for Sebastian Ridley-Thomas and county business. Because that’s a no-no.
16
You don’t put those two together. You try to silo and keep them separate
17 because, otherwise, you’ve got somebody like me standing up here saying,
you know, there’s a quid pro quo. Not a good look.”5 Trial Tr. at 2826:1-8.
18
19 x “Now the defense called an expert who, I guess supposedly said that it’s
okay under state campaign finance law to make a donation when you’re
20 intending to funnel the money and conceal the true source. Fine. Let’s just
21 say that’s accurate. That seems crazy, but let’s go with it.” Trial Tr. at
2878:21-2879:1.
22
23 x “The defense in opening and throughout this case wants you to believe
there’s nothing to see here. This money was always intended to go through
24 USC and there’s some purpose and there’s some nothing burger here.
25 Nonsense. Use your reason and common sense. You don’t lie, you don’t
conceal and move this money through a university and hide it from everyone
26 if there’s nothing to see. The only reason the defense has conceded this point
27 5
Defense counsel objected to this as vouching and asked for a curative instruction,
28 but the court overruled the objection.
DEFENDANT MARK RIDLEY-THOMAS’S RULE 33
12
MOTION
Case 2:21-cr-00485-DSF Document 360 Filed 05/01/23 Page 20 of 33 Page ID #:8957
1 at trial. Because they have to. You can’t hide from these facts now. You got
2 the emails. You got the bank wires. It is so crystal clear.” Trial Tr. at
2879:6-17.
3
4 x “He willingly accepts all of those things, agrees to accept all of those things,
and there is no doubt – not only is he intending to be influenced but, my
5 goodness, intending to be rewarded in connection with L.A. County
6 business.” Trial Tr. at 2817:20-24.
1 structuring did not violate tax law—and the prosecution described legal gifting at
2 issue as a “shuffle.” Id. The court ruled that this inflammatory language, in
3 conjunction with other errors, warranted a new trial.6 Id. at *27, *29.
4 The Madeiros facts are remarkably similar to those at hand, and the
5 likelihood of prejudice here, as in Madeiros, looms over this verdict. It is no
6 coincidence that the jury acquitted Dr. Ridley-Thomas of the majority of the honest
7 services mail and wire fraud counts only to convict him of the ones implicated by
8 the $100,000 donations to USC and then to United Ways. This result is very
9 possibly a consequence of the government’s misconduct.
10 Ample instances of prosecutorial misconduct, as described above, denied
11 Dr. Ridley-Thomas his right to a fair trial. A new trial is warranted based on this
12 alone. As explained below, however, multiple misstatements of the law during trial
13 further prejudiced Dr. Ridley-Thomas and is likewise grounds for a new trial.
14 (iii) The Government Misstated the Law on Honest
Services Fraud Multiple Times During Closing
15 Argument.
16 In closing, with respect to the mail and wire fraud charges, the government
17 argued that Ex. 316, a February 2018 email from Dean Flynn to Dr. Ridley-Thomas
18 discussing the 2018 Telehealth amendment, constituted an official act because
19 Dr. Ridley-Thomas forwarded the email to Emily Williams, one of his deputies.
20 Trial Tr. at 2854:11-2855:9 (“Emily Williams has no idea that there’s anything
21 nefarious going on here, but he’s advising somebody on his staff to do certain
22 things. That’s an official act.”). This argument implies that informing a deputy of
23 a constituent idea and requesting exploration of that idea can constitute an official
24 act, which is an incorrect statement of the law.
25 “Setting up a meeting, hosting an event, or calling an official (or agreeing to
26
6
27 The potential prejudice of this unnecessarily loaded and inaccurate descriptor was
only compounded by the Court’s decision not to give at least the defense’s
28 proposed jury instructions 37(c), 37(d), and 38(b). See Dkt. 175 at 89, 91, and 109.
DEFENDANT MARK RIDLEY-THOMAS’S RULE 33
15
MOTION
Case 2:21-cr-00485-DSF Document 360 Filed 05/01/23 Page 23 of 33 Page ID #:8960
1 government argued that the benefit Dr. Ridley-Thomas gained was the funneling of
2 the $100,000 donation, which enabled him to hide a conflict of interest relating to
3 his son’s relationship with USC. Trial Tr. at 3023:12-19 (“That is called a conflict
4 of interest.”). But, as the Supreme Court has held, a defendant cannot be convicted
5 for honest services fraud based on conflicts of interest or a failure to disclose
6 theory. Skilling v. United States, 561 U.S. 358, 408, 410 (2010) (“… A reasonable
7 limiting construction of § 1346 must exclude this amorphous category [schemes of
8 non-disclosure and concealment of material information] of cases.”); United States
9 v. Weyhrauch, 623 F.3d 707, 708 (9th Cir. 2010) (Weyhrauch II) (overturning
10 conviction of honest services fraud based on failure to disclose).
11 Each of these incorrect statements of law at closing improperly invited the
12 jury to convict Dr. Ridley-Thomas for conduct not prohibited by the statute,
13 lowering the threshold for criminality. The prejudice is obvious, and it deprived
14 Dr. Ridley-Thomas of his right to a fair trial.
15 C. Argument That Section 666 Included Gratuities Was Inaccurate
Statement of Law.
16
17 Multiple times during closing, the government argued that a reward for an
18 action Dr. Ridley-Thomas had already taken or an action he had already intended to
19 take was sufficient to convict under section 666. As explained below, these
20 arguments misstated the law, inviting the jury to convict Dr. Ridley-Thomas for a
21 crime not charged—the receipt of illegal gratuities. The government argued:
22
23 x “But what you cannot do, what it is wrong to do, what it is corrupt to do—
and make no mistake about it—what it is illegal to do is put that hand out and
24 make anyone think that they’ve got to pay to play; that they have to give you
25 or your family member or friend something in connection with that thing
you’re already going to do.” Trial Tr. at 2819:2-7.
26
27 x “You do not ever get to go out with your hand out and make people think
that something that’s already going to happen or you intend to do is in any
28
DEFENDANT MARK RIDLEY-THOMAS’S RULE 33
17
MOTION
Case 2:21-cr-00485-DSF Document 360 Filed 05/01/23 Page 25 of 33 Page ID #:8962
1 way connected with somebody having to give you or your family, your
2 friends, or your dog, or whatever, a nice series of benefits and perks.” Trial
Tr. at 2822:4-9.
3
4 x “Remember, ladies and gentlemen, public officials do not -- do not get to
monetize their public service. It doesn’t matter if what they’re working on is
5 also good for citizens. Doesn’t matter if they always intend to vote for
6 something or do something.” Trial Tr. at 2891:11-15.
1 § 1104(a), 98 Stat. 1837, 2143-44 (1984) with Criminal Law and Procedure
2 Technical Amendments Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-646, § 59, 100 Stat. 3592,
3 3612-13. This change is important because the eliminated language (“for or
4 because of”) of section 666 tracks language in section 201(c)—which, as noted
5 above, is the subsection prohibiting gratuities—and replaced it with language
6 (“intending to be influenced or rewarded”) mirroring that in section 201(b), the
7 subsection prohibiting bribery. Second, the amendment added the word
8 “corruptly,” which appears in section 201(b) (bribery) but, notably, not section
9 201(c) (gratuities). Id. As the Fifth Circuit relatively recently noted, that Congress
10 modified the language of section 666 so that it was more similar to section 201(b)
11 and less similar to 201(c), points toward the “sensible conclusion that § 666 is more
12 like § 201(b), and that Congress meant for § 666 to be similarly limited.” United
13 States v. Hamilton, 46 F.4th 389, 397-98 (5th Cir. 2022); see also United States v.
14 Fernandez, 722 F.3d 1, 26 (1st Cir. 2013) (statute’s modifications “suggest[] the
15 true targets of § 666 are bribes, not gratuities.”); United States v. Lindberg, 39 F.4th
16 151, 172 (4th Cir. 2022) (observing Fourth Circuit “skeptical” section 666 includes
17 gratuities).
18 The penalties for violating section 201(b), (c), and section 666 also point
19 toward this “sensible conclusion.” The penalty for violating section 666—up to ten
20 years—is more analogous to the penalty under section 201 for bribery (up to fifteen
21 years)—not gratuities (up to two years).8 The First Circuit analyzed these
22 discrepancies in its 2013 decision ruling that section 666 excluded gratuities:
23
24 This dramatic discrepancy in maximum penalties between § 666
and § 201(c) makes it difficult to accept that the statutes target
25
the same type of crime—illegal gratuities. The difference in
26 sentences contemplated by § 201(b) and § 666 is both less
27 8
The government acknowledged this discrepancy in its objections to the defense’s
28 proposed jury instruction 37(c). Dkt. 175 at 90.
DEFENDANT MARK RIDLEY-THOMAS’S RULE 33
20
MOTION
Case 2:21-cr-00485-DSF Document 360 Filed 05/01/23 Page 28 of 33 Page ID #:8965
5 Fernandez, 722 F.3d at 20–28. Section 666 does not include gratuities.
6 Dr. Ridley-Thomas anticipates that the government will argue that United
7 States v. Garrido stands for the proposition that section 666 includes gratuities. But
8 Garrido concerned solely whether section 201’s “official act” requirement should
9 be imported to section 666—a proposition the Ninth Circuit rejected. United States
10 v. Garrido, 713 F.3d 985, 1001 (9th Cir. 2013). In fact, the only time Garrido uses
11 the word “gratuity” is in the context of section 201, discussing what that statute
12 does and does not prohibit. Id. The Ninth Circuit has not yet been called to
13 determine whether section 666 prohibits gratuities as well as bribes.
14 Dr. Ridley-Thomas also anticipates that the government will argue that the
15 word “reward” in section 666 (“. . . intending to be influenced or rewarded . . .”)
16 signifies that the statute also criminalizes gratuities. At least the First and Fifth
17 Circuits have grappled with this argument and concluded that the word “reward” in
18 the context of section 666 merely clarifies that, in furtherance of a bribe, the
19 conveyance of a thing of value can occur either (i) at the time the agreement to
20 accept a thing of value is made, or (ii) after the official act occurs:
21 “Influence” would be used in situations in which, for instance, a
22 payment was made to a local government commissioner in order
to induce him to vote in a certain way on a particular matter.
23 “Reward” would be used if a promise of payment was made,
24 contingent upon that commissioner's vote; once the
commissioner voted in the way the payor requested, a “reward”
25 would follow. Both of these situations involve a quid pro quo,
26 and both therefore constitute bribes. What matters, of course, is
that the offer of payment precedes the official act.
27
28
DEFENDANT MARK RIDLEY-THOMAS’S RULE 33
21
MOTION
Case 2:21-cr-00485-DSF Document 360 Filed 05/01/23 Page 29 of 33 Page ID #:8966
1 Fernandez, 722 F.3d at 20–28 (emphasis in original); see also United States v.
2 Jennings, 160 F.3d 1006, 1015 n. 3 (4th Cir.1998) (“Reward” stands for the
3 proposition “that a bribe can be promised before, but paid after, the official’s action
4 on the payor’s behalf” in accord with “the traditional meaning of the term ‘reward’
5 as something offered to induce another to act favorably on one’s behalf (for
6 example, a bounty offered for the capture of a fugitive”). (emphasis added)).
7 The rule of lenity further counsels in favor of construing section 666 to
8 exclude gratuities. True, some circuits have ruled that section 666 includes
9 gratuities. The circuit split at minimum demonstrates that the meaning of section
10 666 with respect to gratuities is ambiguous. Consistent with the rule of lenity, that
11 ambiguity should be construed against the government. United States v. Millis, 621
12 F.3d 914, 916-17 (9th Cir. 2010) (citations omitted). In this context, that means
13 construing section 666 in a way that forecloses a statutory interpretation under
14 which section 666 includes illegal gratuities. Fernandez, 722 F.3d at 40 (J.
15 Howard, concurring). Here, “where text, structure, and history fail to establish that
16 the Government’s position is unambiguously correct,” the rule of lenity resolves the
17 ambiguity in Dr. Ridley-Thomas’s favor. See United States v. Kelly, 874 F.3d
18 1037, 1049 (9th Cir. 2017) (citations omitted) (emphasis in original).
19 Under these circumstances, where the government invited the jury to convict
20 on an improper theory of gratuities, it is impossible to exclude the possibility that
21 the jury convicted Dr. Ridley Thomas of accepting something of value in exchange
22 for an official action he had already decided to do or had already completed—
23 which is not prohibited by section 666. It is further impossible to ascertain the
24 degree to which the jury’s tainted deliberations on section 666 pervaded their
25 analysis of the other crimes charged. The Court therefore should vacate Dr. Ridley-
26 Thomas’s conviction. See Fiore v. White, 531 U.S. 225, 228 (2001) (holding that
27 conviction of defendant for conduct that a “criminal statute, as properly interpreted,
28 does not prohibit ... violate[s] due process”).
DEFENDANT MARK RIDLEY-THOMAS’S RULE 33
22
MOTION
Case 2:21-cr-00485-DSF Document 360 Filed 05/01/23 Page 30 of 33 Page ID #:8967
1 judgment of acquittal, the Court should consider the weakness of the government’s
2 case in its analysis of this motion for a new trial. See Alston, 974 F.2d at 1211-12
3 (citation omitted) (even where “abstract sufficiency of the evidence to sustain a
4 verdict” exists, court may grant new trial). In a motion for a judgment of acquittal,
5 the Court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict.
6 Kellington, 217 F.3d at 1097. The Court has no such obligation with respect to a
7 motion for a new trial and can grant a new trial where there is a risk of “serious
8 miscarriage of justice,” as there is here. See Alston, 974 F.2d at 1211-12 (citation
9 omitted).
10 IV. CONCLUSION
11 The “societal costs of reversal and retrial are an acceptable and often
12 necessary consequence when an error in the first proceeding has deprived a
13 defendant of a fair determination of the issue of guilt or innocence.” United States
14 v. Mechanik, 475 U.S. 66, 72 (1986). For all the reasons explained above,
15 Dr. Ridley-Thomas respectfully requests that this Court grant his motion for a new
16 trial.
17
Dated: May 1, 2023 MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
18
19
By: /s/ Daralyn J. Durie
20 DARALYN J. DURIE
21 Attorneys for Defendant
MARK RIDLEY-THOMAS
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DEFENDANT MARK RIDLEY-THOMAS’S RULE 33
25
MOTION
Case 2:21-cr-00485-DSF Document 360 Filed 05/01/23 Page 33 of 33 Page ID #:8970
1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
2 I hereby certify that on May 1, 2023 the within document was filed with the
3 Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF which will send notification of such filing to the
4 attorneys of record in this case.
5
/s/ Daralyn J. Durie
6 DARALYN J. DURIE
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DEFENDANT MARK RIDLEY-THOMAS’S
RULE 33 MOTION 26