Fifth Circuit Court Cases - Case Law and Opinions from the 5th Circuit Federal Court - Court of Appeals

	ROMINGER LEGAL
		Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Opinions - 5th Circuit
					Need Legal Help?
					Need Legal Help?
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER			LEGAL HEADLINES - CASE LAW - LEGAL FORMS	NOT FINDING WHAT YOU NEED? -CLICK HERE

This opinion or court case is from the Fifth Circuit Court or Appeals. Search our site for more cases - CLICK HERE

LEGAL RESEARCH

COURT REPORTERS

PRIVATE INVESTIGATORS

PROCESS SERVERS

DOCUMENT RETRIEVERS

EXPERT WITNESSES

Find a Private Investigator

Find an Expert Witness

Find a Process Server

Case Law - save on Lexis / WestLaw.

Legal News - Legal Headlines

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
_______________________
No. 01-60304
_______________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
RODALTON HART,
Defendant - Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Mississippi
--------------------
July 16, 2002
ON PETITION FOR REHEARING
(Opinion June 12, 2002, 5th Cir. 2002,_____F.3d_____)
Before KING, Chief Judge, and REAVLEY and WIENER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
IT IS ORDERED that the petition for rehearing is DENIED.
The bribery statute, 18 U.S.C. § 201(b)(1)(B), requires the
government to prove that the appellant gave something of value to
a public official "to influence such public official ... to commit
... any fraud ... on the United States." The indictment describes
the fraud that the appellant sought to influence the government
agent to commit as "the approval of numerous operating loans for
[the appellant's] farming entities." The jury's general verdict
form does not identify with more specificity the particular fraud

or frauds that the jury found the appellant guilty of influencing
the agent to commit; instead, the verdict form simply finds the
appellant guilty of one count under 18 U.S.C. § 201(b)(1)(B).
At trial, the government adduced evidence suggesting that the
appellant gave money to the agent to influence him to commit two
different fraudulent acts: entering the appellant's debts
incorrectly on the Farm and Home Plan, and allowing an incorrect
count of cattle to be entered on the plan. Our panel opinion
establishes that the government made improper use of Federal Rule
of Evidence 1006 (governing summary evidence) in attempting to
prove that the appellant's debts had been improperly entered on the
Farm and Home Plan. This holding has the concomitant effect of
eliminating one of the two possible "frauds" that the appellant
allegedly wished to influence the agent to commit.
It is impossible to tell from the jury's general verdict
whether the jury convicted the appellant for bribery under 18
U.S.C. § 201(b)(1)(B) because it was convinced that he gave money
to the agent to influence him to misrepresent (1) the appellant's
debts, (2) the number of cattle on the appellant's farm, or (3)
both. Because of this impossibility and our holding's elimination
of one of the two possible bases for the jury's guilty verdict on
the bribery charge, the appellant's bribery conviction cannot
stand.