UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. ALEXANDER SITTENFELD aka P.G. Sittenfeld - Articles

All Content

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. ALEXANDER SITTENFELD aka P.G. Sittenfeld

Posted by: Azya Thornton on Feb 11, 2025

Court: 6th Circuit Court (Published Opinions)

Attorneys 1: ARGUED: Yaakov M. Roth, JONES DAY, Washington, D.C., for Appellant. Matthew Singer, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Cincinnati, Ohio, for Appellee.

Attorneys 2: ON BRIEF: Yaakov M. Roth, Harry S. Graver, Ryan M. Proctor, JONES DAY, Washington, D.C., James M. Burnham, KING STREET LEGAL, PLLC, Washington, D.C., for Appellant.

Attorneys 3: ON BRIEF: Matthew Singer, Alexis J. Zouhary, Emily N. Glatfelter, Megan Gaffney Painter, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Cincinnati, Ohio, for Appellee.

Attorneys 4: ON BRIEF: L. Bradfield Hughes, PORTER, WRIGHT, MORRIS & ARTHUR, LLP, Columbus, Ohio, Joseph O. Masterman, COOPER LAW PARTNERS, Washington, D.C., Joshua H. Runyan, Patrick F. Linehan, Nicholas P. Silverman, Jennie A. Askew, M. Vito Arethusa, STEPTOE LLP, Washington, D.C., Charles C. Speth, WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP, Washington, D.C., Steven Garrett Tegrar, DEBEVOISE & PLIMPTON LLP, New York, New York, David A. O’Neil, DEBEVOISE & PLIMPTON LLP, Washington, D.C., John S. Moran, MCGUIRE WOODS, Washington, D.C., for Amici Curiae.

Judge(s): BUSH, NALBANDIAN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges

Court Appealed: United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio at Cincinnati

NALBANDIAN, Circuit Judge. Every day in this country, politicians solicit donations to finance their campaigns. And every day, those same politicians make statements about what they believe in, what they’ve done, and what they promise to do once elected. Sometimes, even often, these solicitations and promises occur in the same place, at the same time. But though this speech and conduct are generally protected by the First Amendment, bribery remains illegal.1 When the bribery involves money flowing to a politician for his personal use, the crime is straightforward. But when a politician is accused of accepting campaign funds in exchange for the promise of official action, the line becomes blurrier. Still, the Supreme Court tells us there is a line. And Congress and the Court have entrusted juries with discerning between legitimate campaign donations and illegitimate bribes. We must respect that line even in hard cases. This is one such case. A jury convicted former Cincinnati council member Alexander “P.G.” Sittenfeld of attempted Hobbs Act extortion and federal-program bribery. But this case comes with twists. All the major players, except for Sittenfeld, were working for or with the government—that is, these were paid actors working to incriminate Sittenfeld. And despite nearly every relevant conversation being recorded, the investigation didn’t yield overwhelming evidence. Still, a jury found that Sittenfeld solicited or accepted campaign donations in exchange for his promise to support a property development project. On appeal, Sittenfeld challenges the sufficiency of the evidence against him and argues that his indictment was constructively amended. But neither challenge succeeds, so we AFFIRM.

Attachments: