Case 2:10-cr-00186-MHT -WC Document 1173 Filed 05/23/11 Page 1 of 5
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )
)
v. ) CRIMINAL ACTION NO.
) 2:10cr186-MHT
MILTON E. McGREGOR, ) (WO)
THOMAS E. COKER, )
ROBERT B. GEDDIE, JR., )
LARRY P. MEANS, )
JAMES E. PREUITT, )
QUINTON T. ROSS, JR., )
HARRI ANNE H. SMITH, )
JARRELL W. WALKER, JR., )
and JOSEPH R. CROSBY. )
OPINION AND ORDER
Upon consideration of the United States Magistrate
Judge’s recommendation (Doc. No. 862) regarding
defendants’ motions to dismiss counts 1 through 12,
and 14 through 16 charging federal-programs bribery
under 18 U.S.C. § 666 (Doc. Nos. 206, 408, 437, 441,
443, 450, 456, 463, 474, and 486), and the objections
to the recommendation (Doc. Nos. 917, 920, 928, 934,
935, 936, 942, 943, and 950), filed by defendants
Milton E. McGregor, Thomas E. Coker, Robert B. Geddie,
Case 2:10-cr-00186-MHT -WC Document 1173 Filed 05/23/11 Page 2 of 5
Jr., Larry P. Means, James E. Preuitt, Quinton T.
Ross, Jr., Harri Anne H. Smith, Jarrell W. Walker,
Jr., and Joseph R. Crosby; after an independent and de
novo review of the record; and after hearing the
parties’ positions during an on-the-record oral
argument held May 5, 2011, it is the ORDER, JUDGMENT,
and DECREE of the court that:
(1) The objections (Doc. Nos. 917, 920, 928, 934,
935, 936, 942, 943, and 950), filed by
defendants Milton E. McGregor, Thomas E.
Coker, Robert B. Geddie, Jr., Larry P. Means,
James E. Preuitt, Quinton T. Ross, Jr., Harri
Anne H. Smith, Jarrell W. Walker, Jr., and
Joseph R. Crosby, are overruled;
(2) The recommendation of the United States
Magistrate Judge (Doc. No. 862) is adopted,
albeit with different reasoning in part; and
(3) The motions to dismiss (Doc. Nos. 206 , 408,
437, 441, 443, 450, 456, 463, 474, and 486),
2
Case 2:10-cr-00186-MHT -WC Document 1173 Filed 05/23/11 Page 3 of 5
filed by defendants Milton E. McGregor,
Thomas E. Coker, Robert B. Geddie, Jr., Larry
P. Means, James E. Preuitt, Quinton T. Ross,
Jr., Harri Anne H. Smith, Jarrell W. Walker,
Jr., and Joseph R. Crosby, are denied.
***
The court offers these additional comments: First,
after the magistrate judge had entered his
recommendation and after the defendants had filed
objections to the recommendation, the government
agreed (though without conceding that the law
required) that the “explicit quid pro quo” standard
announced by the Supreme Court in McCormick v. United
States, 500 U.S. 257 (1991), and further discussed in
Evans v. United States, 504 U.S. 255 (1992), would
govern any proof at trial of alleged bribes made in
the form of campaign contributions. The defendants’
argument, as part of their objections, that this
standard applies has therefore carried the day as far
3
Case 2:10-cr-00186-MHT -WC Document 1173 Filed 05/23/11 Page 4 of 5
as this litigation is concerned. While the parties
still differ in their interpretations of the McCormick
explicit-quid-pro-quo standard and what exactly it
requires the government to prove, this issue will be
better dealt with when drafting jury instructions.
Second, all the § 666 counts are sufficient to
make out quid-pro-quo charges.
Finally, the defendants now further argue, for the
first time, that the § 666 counts are still due to be
dismissed because a quid-pro-quo requirement was not
announced or explained to the grand jury. The
defendants offer no explanation as to why they could
not have argued, as a part of their dismissal motions
and to the magistrate judge, that dismissal of the
counts is warranted both because the requirement
applies to § 666 and because the requirement was not
explained to the grand jury. Moreover, because the
only matter before the court is the magistrate judge’s
recommendation and because, as result of the
4
Case 2:10-cr-00186-MHT -WC Document 1173 Filed 05/23/11 Page 5 of 5
defendants’ failure to make this argument in their
dismissal motions, the magistrate judge did not
address the argument, the argument is not really
before the court at this time. But perhaps most to
the point, while the government and some of the
defendants have filed briefs on the argument, it is
apparent that the briefs were drafted quickly and
without a careful and thorough discussion of the
issues presented by the argument. The court,
therefore, declines to address the argument at this
time. If the defendants still wish to pursue the
argument, they should file separate motions with
briefs that specifically and thoroughly present it.
DONE, this the 23rd day of May, 2011.
/s/ Myron H. Thompson
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
