Page 30 - TPA Journal November December 2023
P. 30
Shortly thereafter, a grand jury indicted ing $5,000 in cash with Davis in the car; and the
Hamilton on two counts of federal-programs various checks Hamilton wrote to Davis’s pre-
bribery relating to his dealings with Caraway and ferred candidates with the names of family mem-
Davis. Caraway pleaded guilty shortly after meet- bers or employees in the memo line. Scroggins’s
ing with Hamilton for taking bribes and kickbacks testimony about what Davis told him was allowed
in an unrelated case. Next went Davis, who took a in under the co-conspirator hearsay exception;
deal pleading guilty for “conspiring” with Davis’s exculpatory statements about Hamilton,
Hamilton to commit federal-programs bribery. however, were deemed inadmissible, despite
According to Hamilton, Davis intended to with- Hamilton’s protestations that they were admissible
draw her guilty plea because she only did so out of statements against Davis’s penal interest. In giving
fear, and she purportedly told others that Hamilton the jury instructions for the federal-programs-
“did not do anything wrong” and “did not pay her bribery counts, the district court (over Hamilton’s
any bribes.” Tragically, however, Davis was killed objections) told the jury that neither a quid-pro-
in a car crash after being hit by a drunk driver, and quo exchange nor any “official act” by the coun-
thus that plan never came to pass. Just after Davis cilmembers was required. Along those lines, the
died, Scroggins took a deal and pleaded guilty to district court also said nothing about what of
one count of misprision of a felony, agreeing to Hamilton’s activity received protection by the
cooperate against Hamilton. The government then First Amendment. The court also declined to give
secured a superseding indictment for Hamilton. an instruction on entrapment as to Hamilton’s
Beyond the two substantive federal-programs- phone call and meeting with Caraway. The jury
bribery counts under 18 U.S.C. § 666, the super- convicted Hamilton on the two substantive § 666
seding indictment added (1) a count of conspiracy counts and the one conspiracy count, but acquitted
to violate § 666, alleging a conspiratorial agree- Hamilton on the Travel Act count. After sentenc-
ment between Hamilton, Davis, and Scroggins, 18 ing, he appealed. While his appeal was pending,
U.S.C. § 371, and (2) a count for violating the the district court pushed back the date which
Travel Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1952, relating to Hamilton was set to report to the Bureau of
Hamilton’s phone call with Caraway. In the lead- Prisons for health reasons. Hamilton then asked
up to trial, Hamilton stipulated that “the City of our court for release pending appeal, which a sin-
Dallas” was a “local government” that “received gle judge of our court denied. After oral argument,
in excess of $10,000 under a Federal program as his report date was looming, Hamilton renewed
involving a grant, contract, subsidy, loan, guaran- his motion for release pending appeal. We granted
tee, insurance or other form of Federal assis- that motion because, after having had the benefit
tance.” After a litany of pre-trial motions, of briefing and oral argument, we concluded that
Hamilton went to trial. Over two weeks, the jury Hamilton raised sufficiently substantial issues jus-
heard from Hamilton that (1) he knew not what tifying his release pending appeal. We now turn to
Davis and Scroggins did with his donations, and the issues raised in this appeal.
(2) his funding of Davis’s preferred candidates
was totally above-board. As to Caraway and the When a jury-instruction challenge “hinges
paid-sick-leave initiative, Hamilton argued that on a question of statutory construction,” our
the money he gave Caraway was purely him help- review is de novo. We review the propriety of jury
ing a friend out. The government provided evi- instructions for an abuse of discretion.
dence to the contrary, including: the video of An instruction is not an abuse of discretion if, all
Hamilton and Caraway’s meeting; recordings of things considered, the instruction “is a correct
his phone calls with Davis; testimony from statement of the law” and it “clearly instructs
Scroggins about his handling of the funds for jurors as to the principles of law applicable to the
Davis; surveillance video of Hamilton withdraw- factual issues confronting them.” But it is an
26 www.texaspoliceassociation.com • (512) 458-3140 Texas Police Journal