Public Corruption—Paul H. Richards II Sentencing

Former Lynwood, California, mayor Paul H. Richards II has been sentenced after being convicted in November on more than 20 public corruption-related charges.^[1] If you recall, he served as Lynwood’s mayor for seven terms, and was found guilty of “honest services” mail fraud, mail fraud, extortion, money laundering, and false statements. The fraud and corruption involved “steering city contracts to a front corporation he secretly owned,” which could have netted more than $6 million, “although he managed to siphon off only $500,000 before authorities interrupted.”^[2]

Mr. Richards was sentenced to nearly 16 years in prison, and ordered to pay more than $787,000 in restitution.^[3] His sister, Paula Cameo Harris—who was convicted in November, and who served as the head of the front company—was sentenced to six years in prison, while Mr. Richards’ long-time friend—Bevan A. Thomas, who was convicted of bribing Mr. Richards in return for city contracts—was sentenced to 10 years in prison.^[4]

The sentences seem especially harsh, but prosecutors argued that “tough punishment sends a strong message to elected officeholders,” and that the sentencing guidelines are calculated on intended, rather than actual financial gain.^[5] Furthermore, US District Court Judge R. Gary Klausner “noted during the sentencing hearing that all three defendants, who mounted a vigorous defense at trial ‘do not seem to accept responsibility for the conduct that has occurred in this case.’”^[6]

An appeal is planned, and among the arguments that might be made is that Judge Klausner barred some evidence that may have shed light on “the city’s political reality.”^[7]

When a person argues that evidence was wrongly excluded, he must show that the exclusion was an abuse of discretion.^[8] “A trial court abuses its discretion when its ruling is based on an erroneous view of the law or a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence.”^[9] Furthermore, if there is an abuse of discretion in the exclusion of evidence, the Court of Appeals will review that error under the “harmless error doctrine,” affirming the judgment unless the ruling affected the substantial rights of the complaining party.^[10] The excluded evidence would have had to affect the jury’s determination in any of the charged counts.^[11] The necessary inquiry is whether the trier of fact would have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt with the additional evidence inserted.^[12]

---

[1] Jean Guccione, Former Mayor Gets 16 Years in Scam, LA Times, Mar. 21, 2006.
[2] Id.
[3] Id.
[4] Id.
[5] Id. See also, US Sentencing Guidelines § 2B1.1 cmt. (3)(A)(ii) (defining intended loss as the pecuniary harm that was intended to result from the offense and which includes “intended pecuniary harm that would have been impossible or unlikely to occur”).
[6] Guccione, supra note 1.
[7] Id.
[8] United States v. Buck, 324 F.3d 786, 790 (5th Cir. 2003).
[9] Bocanegra v. Vicmar Servs., 320 F.3d 581, 584 (5th Cir. 2003) (citing Resolution Trust Corp. v. Bright, 6 F.3d 336, 340-41 (5th Cir. 1993)).
[10] Id. (citing Great Plains Equip. Inc. v. Koch Gathering Sys., Inc., 45 F.3d 962, 967 (5th Cir. 1995)).
[11] United States v. Harms, No. 04-10631 at *22 (5th Cir. 2006) (citing United States v. Tucker, 345 F.3d 320, 326-27 (5th Cir. 2003)).
[12] Id.