United States v. Bryan
Facts
As Director of the West Virginia Lottery, Bryan manipulated the award of a $2.8 million advertising contract by falsely representing that the evaluation committee recommended Fahlgren Martin when it had actually ranked the Arnold Agency highest, and the Lottery later mailed checks under that contract. He also rigged the process for a proposed statewide video lottery contract to favor Video Lottery Consultants by directing drafting of an RFP tailored to VLC and proceeding without proper Commission approval. Separately, Bryan traded in stock of companies doing business with the Lottery, including VLC, using confidential nonpublic information entrusted to him as Lottery Director. Before a federal grand jury investigating the video lottery matter, he denied that anyone other than Lottery personnel had input into the RFP, despite VLC's participation.
Issue
Whether Bryan's conduct supported convictions for honest-services mail fraud and wire fraud without proof that he violated an independent law or regulation, whether his securities trading could support criminal liability under Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 under the misappropriation theory, and whether the evidence supported his perjury conviction. The central securities-law question was whether misappropriating confidential information from a source unconnected to a securities transaction constitutes fraud 'in connection with' the purchase or sale of securities.
Rule
For honest-services mail and wire fraud under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341, 1343, and 1346, the government need not prove that the defendant violated any independent criminal statute, state law, or regulation; the statute reaches schemes depriving citizens of the honest services of public officials, and a vagueness challenge fails where the statute clearly applies to the defendant's conduct. For criminal liability under Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5, there must be manipulation or deception in the form of a material misrepresentation or omission, and the deception must be directed at a purchaser or seller of securities, or at least a person connected with or financially interested in an actual or proposed securities transaction; a mere breach of fiduciary duty to the source of information, followed by trading, is not enough. Perjury under 18 U.S.C. § 1623 requires a knowingly false material declaration, but the questioning must be sufficiently precise to support the inference that the witness understood and lied.
See the holding & full analysis
Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.
- The court's holding and reasoning
- Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
- 10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case
Test yourself
Leah argues the charge fails because no Ohio statute or city ordinance expressly prohibited the specific favoritism and document manipulation she used. How should the court rule?