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
   25   26   27   28   29   30   31   32   33   34   35