United States v. Krilich
United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
159 F.3d 1020 (1999)
Robert Krilich (defendant) developed properties. To finance an apartment complex, Krilich needed assured support from the mayor. Krilich sponsored a hole-in-one contest at the ninth hole of a local country club and used it as a cover for a bribe to the mayor, so that the National Hole-in-One Association would provide insurance paying the prize if someone made a hole in one. The mayor’s son appeared to win the prize, but Krilich had simply taken the ball and slipped it into the hole to fake a hole in one. Krilich admitted this in a proffer agreement with a United States attorney. The proffer included a conditional waiver permitting the prosecutor to use Krilich’s statements against him at trial if Krilich presented a position inconsistent with the proffer, either through his own testimony or evidence presented through others’ testimony. At trial, Krilich’s counsel elicited a variety of testimony on cross-examination. Several witnesses stated the ninth hole was close to and clearly visible from the clubhouse. Under the counsel’s questioning, two witnesses stated they were at the ninth hole when the shot was made but did not think Krilich was present. Krilich’s counsel also elicited testimony from the vice president of Krilich’s company that he knew of no bribes paid in connection with company projects. The prosecutor used some of the statements in the proffer against Krilich at trial, and Krilich was convicted. Krilich appealed, arguing that the district court erred in allowing the prosecutor to use the contents of the proffer against him because the evidence was elicited on cross-examination rather than through Krilich’s own witnesses.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Easterbrook, J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 707,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee
Here's why 707,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 44,500 briefs, keyed to 983 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.