USA v MRT: Acquitted Conduct Key to Understanding Success of Appeal (PART 3)
UNDERSTANDING ACQUITTED CONDUCT
Former Los Angeles City Council member Dr. Mark Ridley-Thomas (MRT) was tried by federal prosecutors in the United States Attorney’s Office (USAO) on 19 various counts of illegal corruption in March 2023. Of these, MRT was convicted on seven: one count of federal bribery, one count of conspiracy, one count of honest services mail fraud and four counts of honest services wire fraud.
He is appealing these convictions before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Oral argument is scheduled on November 21.
Acquittals on the other twelve charges he faced provideinsight essential to understanding the success of his appeal and the potential to overturn his conviction.
CASE BACKGROUND
Dr. Ridley-Thomas was found guilty of conspiring to accept and receive a bribe based on his effort to expedite release of a $100,000 sponsorship of the Policy, Practice and Research Initiative (PPRI), a community non-profit organized by his son in exchange for the official act of supporting extension and amendments to a service contract with USC in 2018. Even though the sponsorship was made at the dean’s discretion using $100,000 in funding that originated from MRT, the prosecution itself affirmed that the transfer from MRT’s ballot committee account of $100,000 (the Mark Ridley-Thomas Committee for a Better Los Angeles) to the dean’s discretionary account at USC was lawful and properly reported. There was no agreement to perform the transaction prior to MRT’s vote on the contract.
The conspiracy and bribery convictions were predicated solely on MRT’s advocacy for and request of USC School of Social Work Dean Marilyn Flynn to expedite her legal, discretionary sponsorship from USC to the non-profit organization.
There was evidence, however, that MRT’s motivation in seeking to expedite the sponsorship was linked to on-boarding a staff person at PRPI to start its polling work in time to impact the November 2018 election. MRT would receive none of the funds he requested. Neither would his son. There was no financial benefit or conflict of interest.
Ultimately, the jury believed the prosecution’s argument that MRT was guilty of a quid pro quo exchange and that the $100,000 transfers constituted illegal “funneling” designed to avoid “nepotistic optics.” The expedited sponsorship using legal contributions to avoid such “nepotistic optics” and “reputational harm” were perceived as the “thing of value” MRT exchanged for his support of a single contract extension. Following the prosecution’s lead, the jury ignored MRT’s commitment to support the contract weeks, if not months, before the PPRI sponsorship was ever discussed —a critical fact essential to the definition of bribery.
This was no ordinary bribery case. The donation from MRT’s ballot committee was properly disclosed pursuant to State law and violated no conflict of interest rules because the transaction resulted in no personal financial benefit or enrichment for himself or his son. Although prosecutors characterized the transaction as a corrupt quid pro quo (this for that) arrangement between the social work school and Ridley-Thomas, there was no payment made or agreed to before announcing his support of the contract extension.Nevertheless, despite this fact, the jury found enough evidence of criminal intent to meet the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt that MRT engaged in an illegal quid pro quo exchange.
ACQUITTED CONDUCT
The jury found Mark Ridley-Thomas (MRT) “not guilty” on the twelve charges directly associated with a typical bribery case — the exchange of his vote for something of monetary value (of personal benefit) to himself or someone else — in this case his son, Sebastian. These “not guilty” acquittals pertained to clearly personally enriching benefits—graduate school admission, free tuition and a paid (non-tenure) adjunct professorship position—a job.
The prosecution unsuccessfully argued the “substantial benefits” extended to former Assembly Member Sebastian Ridley-Thomas by USC were part of the bribery, fraud and conspiracy scheme MRT was accused of masterminding as part of a shakedown. Witness testimony revealed, however, that the USC benefit offers made to Sebastian were consistent with well-established practice at USC of recruiting, admitting and hiring prominent former public officials who could contribute to the academic reputation and educational environment based on their experience as policy-makers.
The jury acquitted MRT on the illegal fraudulent acts specifically related to admission, free tuition and the paid professorship for his son.
“Many of the jurors believed that there was no connection between Mark Ridley-Thomas and the USC things, and it came back to the [legal] $100,000 donation,” [jury Foreperson] Kilpelainen said in post-verdict comments.
ACQUITTALS WEAKEN PROSECUTION’S CASE
These acquittals illustrate the confusing and problematic nature of the jury’s verdict and the prosecution itself. Unlike “nepotistic optics” and “reputational harm,” admission, tuition and employment each have a tangible, quantifiable monetary value.
There is no objective monetary value tied to optics or reputational harm. These perceptions cannot pay the rent, buy a meal or be exchanged for a pair of shoes.
The acquittals on the twelve charges that most resemble bribery significantly weaken the prosecution’s argument on appeal. They highlight the meaning of bribery; the nature of a quid pro quo exchange; what tangible things of value actually are; the distinction between bribes and gratuities; the validity of a prosecution that misapplied and misinterpreted their definitions; and a trial court error that failed to instruct the jury on the difference between the two.
The evidence and fact pattern related to the convictions on the other seven bribery and honest services fraud and conspiracy charges do not fit into the Supreme Court’s post-Snyder decision clarifying the definition of bribery.
The Ninth Circuit jurists on the panel that is hearing the oral argument on November 21 will certainly be familiar with the trial record. They must make sense of the acquitted conduct on the charges that most resemble bribery. Buttressed by the standard of the Supreme Court’s decision in Snyder, we maintain cautious optimism for an outcome favorable to MRT.