Sports
Criminal – Honest services wire fraud – Rhode Island Lawyers Weekly
Where a defendant was convicted of honest services wire fraud and conspiracy to commit federal programs bribery, he must be granted a new trial on the honest services fraud charge in light of United States v. Abdelaziz, 68 F.4th 1 (1st Cir. 2023).
“This appeal concerns the high-stakes world of college admissions. Jovan Vavic was an award-winning head coach of the men’s and women’s water polo teams at the University of Southern California (USC). As head coach, he was responsible for recruiting elite high school players and fundraising for his teams. In 2019, he was indicted for his role in the nationwide ‘Varsity Blues’ college admissions scandal, orchestrated by college consultant Rick Singer. According to the government, Vavic agreed to facilitate the admission of undergraduate applicants to USC as fake athletic recruits in exchange for payment from Singer and his clients.
“A jury ultimately convicted Vavic, but the district court granted a new trial after concluding that certain statements in the government’s rebuttal closing amounted to prosecutorial misconduct. The United States now appeals the new trial order as to two of its charges against Vavic: honest services wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§1343 and 1346 and conspiracy to commit federal programs bribery in violation of 18 U.S.C. §371. While this appeal was pending, we issued our decision in United States v. Abdelaziz, 68 F.4th 1 (1st Cir. 2023), another Varsity Blues case, and concluded that payments to university accounts generally could not support a conviction for honest services wire fraud but could support a conviction for federal programs bribery. We now reverse the order in this case in part: We affirm the district court’s grant of a new trial on the honest services fraud charge but reinstate Vavic’s conviction on the federal programs bribery conspiracy charge. …
“… We begin with the honest services fraud conviction under Count Sixteen and conclude that Vavic’s alternative ground for affirming the district court’s new trial order has merit. Our recent decision in Abdelaziz invalidated the legal theory that payments made to USC, the victim of the scheme to defraud, could be actionable bribes under honest services fraud. Thus, we affirm the grant of a new trial as to Count Sixteen because it is impossible to tell if the jury reached the verdict on an invalid legal theory, and the error is not harmless. …
“Next, we turn to Count Three — the conspiracy to commit federal programs bribery charge. Under de novo review, we conclude that the government’s statements in rebuttal did not result in plain error. We then reject Vavic’s alternative grounds for affirming the new trial order on Count Three, holding that the government’s introduction of Singer’s false statements does not require vacating his conviction and there was no prejudicial variance.
“Thus, we affirm the district court’s new trial order as to Count Sixteen and reverse as to Count Three.”
United States v. Vavic (Lawyers Weekly No. 01-107-25) (67 pages) (Rikelman, J.) Appealed from a decision by Talwani, J., in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. Alexia R. De Vincentis, with whom Joshua S. Levy was on brief, for the United States; Sarah M. Harris, with whom Katherine A. Trefz, Ashwin G. Shandilya, Jeffrey G. Ho and Williams & Connolly were on brief, for the defendant-appellee; Joy Longnecker, Kian Hudson, Jeanine Kerridge, Eric Sussman, Barnes & Thornburg LLP, Sara Silva and Silva Kettlewell & Pignatelli LLP on brief for Massachusetts Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, amicus curiae (Docket No. 22-1787) (May 30, 2025).
Click here to read the full text of the opinion.