United States v. Michael R. Goland

959 F.2d 1449 UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael R. GOLAND, Defendant-Appellant. No. 90-50423. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted Nov. 5, 1991. Decided March 25, 1992. Seth P. Waxman, Miller, Cassidy, Larroca & Lewin, Washington, D.C., for defendant-appellant. George B. Newhouse, Jr., Asst. U.S. Atty., Los Angeles, Cal., for plaintiff-appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California. Before FARRIS, PREGERSON and THOMPSON, Circuit Judges. DAVID R. THOMPSON, Circuit Judge: OVERVIEW 1 Michael Goland was charged with committing political campaign violations in connection with the race between Alan Cranston, Ed Zschau, and Ed Vallen for the United States Senate in the 1986 California election. His first trial ended in a mistrial. Goland then moved to dismiss the indictment on double jeopardy grounds. The district court denied the motion and Goland took an interlocutory appeal under Abney v. United States, 431 U.S. 651 , 97 S.Ct. 2034 , 52 L.Ed.2d 651 (1977). In that appeal, we held that double jeopardy did not bar Goland's reprosecution. United States v. Goland, 897 F.2d 405, 413…

OVERVIEW

Michael Goland was charged with committing political campaign violations in connection with the race between Alan Cran-ston, Ed Zschau, and Ed Vallen for the United States Senate in the 1986 California election. His first trial ended in a mistrial. Goland then moved to dismiss the indictment on double jeopardy grounds. The district court denied the motion and Goland took an interlocutory appeal under Abney v. United States, 431 U.S. 651 , 97 S.Ct. 2034 , 52 L.Ed.2d 651 (1977). In that appeal, we held that double jeopardy did not bar Goland’s reprosecution. United States v. Goland, 897 F.2d 405, 413 (9th Cir.1990). Goland was tried again and this time a jury convicted him of making excessive contributions to a political campaign in violation of 2 U.S.C. §§ 441a(a)(l)(A) and 437g(d). He appeals this conviction. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and we affirm.

FACTS

Alan Cranston (Democrat), Ed Zschau (Republican), and Ed Vallen (American Independent Party) ran in the 1986 California election for the United States Senate. The contest between Cranston and Zschau was close, and pollsters predicted a narrow margin would decide the race. Goland favored Cranston…

dissenting:

I respectfully dissent. The majority holds that Goland made a “contribution” to Ed Vallen’s campaign, and not an “independent expenditure” to Senator Alan Cran- *1455 ston’s campaign. My disagreement with the majority’s holding rests on three grounds. First, I disagree with the majority’s application of the campaign contribution law, particularly in light of the fact that it is a specific intent crime. Second, the majority ignores the doctrine of lenity, which is especially important when First Amendment rights are involved. Third, the district court excluded critical evidence that was directly relevant to Goland’s state of mind.

I agree with the majority that a “contribution” under 2 U.S.C. § 441a(a)(l)(A) does not require a direct payment to the candidate, ante at 1452, but I disagree that it is immaterial to conviction under this section that Goland’s efforts were actually in support of Cranston, ante at 1452. To the contrary, this fact is highly relevant to Goland’s culpability because he is charged with a specific intent crime. Thus, his subjective motive must be taken into account before a conviction can be rightfully returned.

At all times, Goland has…