Illegal bribe may be done to influence conduct.
Finally, government must prove that the public official intended to be rewarded with $5,000 or more.
To find Bobby Ferguson guilty in counts 16 and 17. Need to consider that act of bribery was committed. Second that Ferguson helped to commit the crime. Government must prove that Ferguson did something to encourage committing crime.
Charges of mail and wire fraud, 18 through 30.
18 through 27 charge Kwame Kilpatrick with mail fraud. Judge goes through counts individually. Interestingly, 2 counts have to do with checks payable to Super Camp.
Counts 28 through 30 charge Kwame with wire fraud. Judge individually lists the counts.
To find Kwame guilty of wire and mail fraud, government must have proven that Kwame knowingly devised a scheme to defraud people. Government must prove material misrepresentation.
A scheme to defraud includes any plan whereby someone intends to take money from someone else though false pretenses. False pretense means false assertions which were made with reckless indifference to the truth. An act knowingly done is not by mistake.
To act with intent to defraud is to act with intention of deceit.
Reasonable doubt for any of the elements, must find Kwame Kilpatrick must find him not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
10:04AM Judge calls for 20 minute break.
10:27AM Judge tells jurors she knows that they may be overwhelmed by the sheer volume of instructions. Says they won't have to do this alone with their notes.
Moving to page 39, count 1, RICO charge. From 2000 to 2009, Kwame and Bobby and Bernard conspired to conduct racketeering activity. In order to convict on count 1, must prove: 1, that Kilpatrick enterprise existed. 2, the defendant was associated with enterprise. 3, knowingly participated in conduct. 4, defendant agreed to commit at least 2 acts of racketeering.
The evidence must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the Kilpatrick Enterprise existed. It need not be a formal entity like a corporation. To be an enterprise must show: ongoing association of people and that the association had ongoing purpose and framework and that it is set apart from pattern of racketeering in which it engages.
May find enterprise existed without ad-hoc command. Members of group need not have had fixed roles. It must have existed to have a course of conduct; associates could engage in spurts of activity followed by period of inactivity. Not necessary that the evidence prove every allegation against the enterprise- just that it existed.
The second element to find defendant guilty is that the defendant was associated with the Kilpatrick Enterprise. A person is associated with an enterprise when he joins with other members to further the activities of the enterprise.
Third element the evidence must show beyond a reasonable doubt for conviction is that the defendant agreed to knowingly participate in conduct of the Kilpatrick Enterprise. Not necessary to show that the defendant exercised control or primary responsibility for the enterprise.
The fourth element is that the defendant agreed that he or one or more of the conspirators would intentionally commit or cause 2 or more racketeering acts and that those acts made a pattern of racketeering activity. For racketeering: defendant agreed to commit at least 2 acts of extortion, bribery, wire or male fraud, malicious threats to commit threats to extortion.
The racketeering acts had to be related to each other- that is they had similar purposes or were inter-related by distinguishing characteristics.
Racketeering activity must have extended through a period of time. A long-term association that exists for criminal purposes.
Types of racketeering charges listed are all in violation of Michigan law.
Defendants agreed that acts were committed to further the Kilpatrick Enterprise.
Government must prove that the defendant corruptly influenced a witness, they did so to influence testimony. Government not required to prove that the defendant succeeded in witness tampering.
The indictment also charges making malicious threats to extort money and bribery to extort money from a public official.
Must prove: Kwame Kilpatrick was a public official, while a Kwame Kilpatrick was an official received money and that the offer of money was made in order to receive an advantage.