Convictions of Honest Services Wire Fraud, violations of the Travel Act, & of Federal Program Bribery; Limitations on defendant’s testimony about what constituted an “official act”; Sufficiency of the evidence on the interstate element of the charged offenses, the federal aspect of the bribery charges, & the substantive aspect of the bribery charges (the quid pro quo); Supervised release condition as to excessive alcohol use; Sentencing considerations

The court affirmed defendant-Goldy’s convictions and sentences for Honest Services Wire Fraud, violations of the Travel Act, and Federal Program Bribery, holding that the government offered sufficient evidence that Goldy, a former county prosecutor, traded legal help for sexual favors. The charges arose from his involvement with a young woman (M.H.). “They agreed that she would trade sex acts and nude photos and videos for his help with her legal problems, e.g., reduction of charges, withdrawal of warrants, and release from jail.” The court first rejected his argument that the district court erred by restricting his testimony. He claimed that none of his actions constituted “an ‘official act’ under Kentucky law or as would be relevant to his federal charges[.]” The court held that to the extent he argued “that the question of how the law defines an ‘official act’ is somehow a fact question for the jury, rather than a legal question for the court, the argument” failed. To the extent he contended “that he had a right to testify as a lay witness about the meaning and effect of Kentucky law and the ordinary operation of the Kentucky judicial process,” this also failed. As to the sufficiency of the evidence, the quid pro quo for the bribery and wire fraud charges was established where a reasonable juror could find that there was a trade of sex acts for legal help. As to the interstate nexus element of his wire fraud and Travel Act offenses, the court cited the “numerous electronic communications between Goldy and M.H . . . that were conveyed on Facebook’s and Apple’s messaging programs.” The government established that they necessarily traveled interstate. The court also held that the government established the federal aspect of Federal Program Bribery, that he “was the agent of an entity that received at least $10,000 in federal funding during the one-year period at issue.” It noted that under Sixth Circuit precedent, Federal Program Bribery “‘does not require a nexus between the alleged bribes and the federal funding received by the recipient agency.’” It also noted that his challenge to the jury instructions was not preserved for appeal, and he could not show plain error. Further, it upheld the condition of his supervised release that required him to refrain from “the excessive use of alcohol[,]” where he again could not meet the plain error standard. As to the district court’s refusal “to consider certain aspects of his personal circumstances,” under Sixth Circuit precedent, the district court could not consider “collateral consequences” of his convictions, such as loss of income and disbarment.