United States v. Dougherty

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. JOHN DOUGHERTY et al.

Criminal Action No. 19-64

United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania

February 24, 2023

MEMORANDUM OPINION

SCHMEHL, J.

After a two-month trial, a jury in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania returned a partial guilty verdict against Defendants John Dougherty and Robert Henon for political corruption-related crimes. After the Government's case in chief, Defendants moved for Judgments of Acquittal, which this Court predominantly denied. (See ECF No. 252.) Following the jury's verdict, Defendants renewed their Motions for Judgement of Acquittal. (See ECF Nos. 253, 254.) For the reasons below, Defendants' Motions are denied.

I. Background

A grand jury charged Defendants John Dougherty, Robert Henon, Brian Burrows, Michael Niell, Marita Crawford, Niko Rodriguez Brian Fiocca, and Anthony Massa in a 116-count indictment alleging embezzlement of union assets; wire, tax and honest services fraud; and other crimes. This Court severed the case into two trials: one for the embezzlement-related counts (Counts 1-96), and a second for the political corruption related counts (Counts 97-116). See United States v. Dougherty, 2020 WL 6395464 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 2, 2020). The Court found that the political corruption trial should proceed first because only two defendants were implicated, and it would therefore be most efficiently managed under COVID-19 pandemic limitations.

This political corruption trial against Defendants Dougherty and Henon had two main parts. The first was an alleged corrupt agreement between the two-a quid pro quo. Allegedly, Dougherty, through Local 98, authorized Henon's Local 98 salary while Henon was a Philadelphia City Councilmember “in return for Henon's performance of official acts, in essence, any action Dougherty wanted to further his interests.” (ECF No. 271 at 1.) The second part was four federal program bribery counts and three related wire fraud counts against Henon. These counts alleged that Henon solicited and accepted campaign contributions for official acts.

Defendant John Dougherty was raised in South Philadelphia and began working for Local 98 of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers in his early adulthood. Over the years, he worked up Local 98's ranks to become Local 98's highest-ranking member, the Business Manager. The Government and Defendants stipulated that Dougherty was “the principal officer of Local 98, and all other Local 98 officers were required to cooperate with him and not work in conflict with him.” Dougherty had the authority “to approve the hiring of all employees,” “set the number of hours for which all employees were paid,” and “to discharge [employees] at any time.” (Gov. Ex. 414.)

The evidence at trial showed that Dougherty is one of the most well-connected and influential people in Philadelphia. He made and received daily calls from former and present Philadelphia City Councilmembers and Mayors, Pennsylvania Representatives and Senators, business leaders, union leaders, and more. Through his business decisions, influence, and connections, Dougherty is the primary reason why Local 98 is an economic, political, and social powerhouse in Philadelphia and throughout the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

Defendant Robert “Bobby” Henon was an employee of Local 98 since 1989. Like Dougherty, Henon worked up Local 98's ranks. He began as an apprentice, became an electrician, and eventually became Local 98's Political Director. In 2011, Henon won a seat on Philadelphia City Council for the Sixth District, which is situated in the Northeast of Philadelphia. Shortly after Henon's election, Dougherty held a “Sound and Communications Membership meeting” where he told Local 98 employees that “Bobby will still play a role in our union operation and will collect a check from Local 98.” (See ECF No. 254 at 21; ECF No. 271 at 24.) As an employee of Local 98, Henon fell within Dougherty's authority.

The Philadelphia City Charter permits Councilmembers to retain outside employment so long as they report the employment as required by law. Henon properly reported his Local 98 employment every year from 2011 to 2022, his year of resignation-though he reported his position as an “electrician,” while Local 98 recorded his position as “office staff” who worked twenty hours per week. Evidence also showed that many other City Councilmembers retain outside employment like Henon.

Henon's salary, along with sporting event tickets from Local 98, is the quid to the Government's alleged quid pro quo. The Government alleged and presented evidence at trial that “Dougherty kept him on the payroll, a payroll that was controlled entirely by John Dougherty,” so that Henon would “be his man on the inside of City Council.” (Trial Tr. Day 21, Gov.'s Closing, at 54-55, 51.) Further, “what did John Dougherty get for his money? He got Henon's votes; he got his public resources, the use of his staff; he got the influence of his office; his ability to hold hearings; to delay hearings; to draft support, introduce and vote for resolutions and bills; and to oppose and vote against resolutions and bills.” (Id. at 51-52.)

The Government presented the following about Henon's employment and more: In a call with Philadelphia Mayor James Kenney, Dougherty stated that Henon was “on my payroll.” (Gov. Ex. 1-46839.) The Political Director of Local 98 stated to a Local 98 employee who often worked with Henon that Henon would run for Majority Leader of City Council “[i]f John wants to do it. Maybe John says, don't run for Majority, I don't know but . . . John is the boss, that's it . . . Not Bobby, nobody.” (Gov. Ex. 3-3458.) The Government could not find any work product, office, desk, or anything else that belonged to Henon at Local 98 headquarters when they executed search warrants. Henon's City Council staff were predominantly unaware of his Local 98 employment until Philadelphia Magazine wrote on the matter. Henon's online City Council biography never listed his Local 98 employment. Henon told a fellow Councilmember that she need not necessarily report sporting events from Local 98. Lastly, Dougherty and Henon frequently discussed City Council business telephonically.^[1]

Correspondingly, Defendants cross examined the Government's lead witness, FBI Special Agent Jason Blake, who relayed nearly all the wiretapped calls and texts during trial about Henon's Local 98 employment. Agent Blake stated that Henon was a Local 98 delegate to the AFL-CIO, attended AFL-CIO meetings, attended Building Trades meetings, and participated in political campaigns of various individuals. (Trial Tr. Day 15, 67-68.) Multiple Local 98 employees testified that Henon attended monthly Local 98 meetings: “Bobby was always there,” he did Local 98 work “all the time,” and more. Courtney Voss, Henon's Chief of Staff and paramour, testified that he worked eighty hours a week as a Councilmember and “a ton of hours” for Local 98. (ECF No. 253 at 10; ECF No. 271 at 30-34.)

For the salary and sporting events, Henon allegedly returned “official acts,” or the quo, on six separate topics, only five of which were ultimately presented to the jury. In no particular order, the five topics were: (1) L&I and CHOP; (2) Plumbing Code; (3) Comcast Franchise Agreement; (4) Towing; and (5) Soda Tax.

The first topic relates to License and Inspection (L&I) issues at the Children's Hospital of Pennsylvania (CHOP). Henon received communications from Dougherty and his constituents about license and inspection issues for the installations of medical equipment at CHOP. The Government presented evidence that prior to the alleged official act(s), Henon hosted a meeting between himself, Dougherty, and Philadelphia Streets and L&I Commissioner Carlton Williams. Dougherty purportedly did most of the talking during the meeting and informed Williams of L&I violations at a work site that Williams stated were later unfounded, and he told Williams that he could have his job taken away from him. Commissioner Williams testified that responding to complaints and having discussions with people like Henon and Dougherty was “his job,” he would “frequently” talk to Councilmembers about L&I issues, and that Henon never asked him to do anything unlawful or unethical. (Trial Tr. Day 5, at 27, 33, 74.)

In July and August 2015, Dougherty learned that non-union employees were installing complex medical equipment at CHOP. On both incidents, Dougherty directed constituents to contact Henon about the potential license and inspection issues. Once Henon was notified, Henon contacted Commissioner Williams, L&I inspectors went to the work sites, and stop work orders were issued. (See ECF No. 271 at 38-42; ECF No. 253 at 12-13.)

The second topic relates to a Philadelphia Plumbing Code change. In 2015, a plumber's union opposed changing the Philadelphia Plumbing Code to the International Plumbing Code (“IPC”). The plumbers preferred modernizing and amending the existing code to best suit Philadelphia rather than adopting the IPC. At this time, Dougherty was running for the coveted position of Business Manager of the Building Trades, the top position that brings together many of the local unions. During the campaign, Dougherty believed that the local plumbers opposed his nomination, so he therefore asked Henon to use the potential plumbing code change as leverage against the plumber's union. Dougherty and Henon were telephonically discussing “plumber . . . nonsense . . . that's happening,” a conversation in which Henon told Dougherty his plans on the matter, Dougherty replies, “do it,” and Henon responds, “I'm just running it by you,” “I'm going to do that,” and that it was an “us thing.” (Gov. Ex. 4-270.) Shortly thereafter, Henon made calls to...