United States v. Whittemore, No. 13-10515 (9th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CaseDefendant appealed his conviction for making excessive campaign contributions, and making contributions in the name of another. The court concluded that the district court did not err in refusing defendant's proffered jury instructions that an unconditional gift of funds cannot violate 2 U.S.C. 441f if the funds have become the property of the donors under Nevada law because defendant's theory is not supported by law; to the extent defendant's theory is that the unconditional nature of the gifts prevented him from forming the necessary intent, the instructions given by the district court adequately encompassed his theory; defendant's claim that the individual contribution limits of section 441a and the prohibition on conduit contributions in section 441f violate defendant's free speech and association rights under the First Amendment is foreclosed by Buckley v. Valeo; the court rejected defendant's claims of evidentiary errors; and the evidence was sufficient to support defendant's conviction. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court.
Court Description: Criminal Law. The panel affirmed convictions of making excessive campaign contributions in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 441a(a)(1) and 437g(d)(1)(A)(i), and making contributions in the name of another in violation of 2 U.S.C. §§ 441f and 437g(d)(1)(A)(i). The panel held that the defendant’s theory – that unconditional gifts under Nevada law cannot be conduit contributions in violation of federal law – is not supported by law, and that to the extent the defendant’s theory is that the unconditional nature of the gifts prevented him from forming the necessary intent, the instructions given by the court adequately encompassed his theory. The panel did not entertain the defendant’s challenge to the district court’s tentative ruling denying the defendant’s motion in limine to exclude proffered testimony from a linguistics professor, where the defendant never renewed the motion. Regarding the defendant’s contentions that the district court improperly allowed speculative testimony in violation of Fed. R. Evid. 602, the panel held that defense counsel had opened the door to some of the testimony, that some of the testimony was not impermissibly speculative, and that any error was harmless. UNITED STATES V. WHITTEMORE 3 The panel held that there was sufficient evidence to support the conviction.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.