Full opinion text
ON REMAND FROM THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT. Before TJOFLAT, EDMONDSON and HILL, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: This case is before us on remand from the Supreme Court of the United States for reconsideration in light of Skilling v. United States, 561 U.S. -, 130 S.Ct. 2896, 177 L.Ed.2d 619 (2010). The parties were ordered to re-brief the case; oral argument was heard. I. Don Eugene Siegelman is the former Governor of Alabama. Richard Scrushy is the founder and former Chief Executive Officer of HealthSouth Corporation (“HealthSouth”), a major hospital corporation with operations throughout Alabama. The defendants were convicted of federal funds bribery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 666(a)(1)(B), and five counts of honest services mail fraud and conspiracy, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341, 1346, and 18 U.S.C. § 371. Siegelman was also convicted of obstruction of justice, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1512(b)(3). The bribery convictions were based on allegations that the defendants made and executed a corrupt agreement whereby Scrushy gave Siegelman $500,000 in exchange for Siegelman’s appointing him to Alabama’s Certificate of Need Review Board (the “CON” Board). The honest services mail fraud convictions were also based in part upon these bribery allegations, but two of the counts also alleged that Scrushy used the CON Board seat to obtain favorable treatment for Health-South’s applications. The conspiracy count alleged that Scrushy and Siegelman conspired to violate the honest services statute. Siegelman’s obstruction of justice conviction is based on allegations that he corruptly influenced another to create a series of sham check transactions to cover up a separate “pay-to-play” payment to him. This is an extraordinary case. It involves allegations of corruption at the highest levels of Alabama state government. Its resolution has strained the resources of both Alabama and the federal government. But it has arrived in this court with the “sword and buckler” of a jury verdict. The yeoman’s work of our judicial system is done by a single judge and a jury. Twelve ordinary citizens of Alabama were asked to sit through long days of often tedious and obscure testimony and pour over countless documents to decide what happened, and, having done so, to apply to these facts the law as the judge has explained it to them. And they do. Often at great personal sacrifice. Though the popular culture sometimes asserts otherwise, the virtue of our jury system is that it most often gets it right. This is the great achievement of our system of justice. The jury’s verdict commands the respect of this court, and that verdict must be sustained if there is substantial evidence to support it. Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60, 80, 62 S.Ct. 457, 86 L.Ed. 680 (1942). Furthermore, to the extent that the verdict rests upon the jury’s evaluations of the credibility of individual witnesses, and the reasonable inferences to be drawn from that testimony, we owe deference to those decisions. In our system, the jury decides what the facts are, by listening to the witnesses and making judgments about whom to believe. This they have done, and, though invited to do so, we shall not substitute our judgment for theirs. This is not to say that the judgment below is inviolable. Having determined what the facts are, a jury applies the law as the judge instructs them. The defendants’ lawyers assert that there were errors in those instructions. They also contend that the court committed other legal mistakes during the course of the trial. Our duty as an appellate court is to answer properly presented questions from the parties in the case as to whether the law was correctly interpreted by the district court. With this in mind, we have reviewed the claims of legal error in the proceedings below, and our opinion as to their merit follows. First, however, we recount the facts as the jury found them. II. Don Siegelman was elected Governor of Alabama in 1998 on a campaign platform that advocated the establishment of a state lottery to help fund education in Alabama. After his election, he established the Alabama Education Lottery Foundation (the “Foundation”) to raise money to campaign for voter approval of a ballot initiative to establish a state lottery. Darren Cline, the Foundation’s fundraising director, testified that Siegelman “called the shots” on the lottery campaign. The lottery initiative was eventually defeated in a referendum held in October of 1999. On March 9, 2000, the Foundation borrowed $730,789.29 from an Alabama bank in order to pay down debt incurred by the Alabama Democratic Party for get-out-the-vote expenses during the lottery campaign. This note was personally and unconditionally guaranteed by Siegelman. Richard Scrushy, the CEO of Health-South had served on the CON Board under three previous governors of Alabama. The CON Board is an arm of the State Health Planning and Development Agency and exists to prevent unnecessary duplication of healthcare services in Alabama. The Board determines the number of healthcare facilities in Alabama through a process that requires healthcare providers to apply for and obtain a certificate of a healthcare need before opening a new facility or offering a special healthcare service. The CON Board decides which healthcare applications will be approved for an announced healthcare need, choosing between competing applications and ruling on objections filed by an applicant’s competitor. The Governor of Alabama has sole discretion to appoint the members of the CON Board, who serve at his pleasure. Scrushy had supported Siegelman’s opponent in the just prior election. Nick Bailey was one of Siegelman’s closest associates and had worked on Siegelman’s campaign for governor. Cline testified that “whatever [Bailey] told me that the Governor wanted was what the Governor said.” Cline also testified that “if the Governor wanted to get something done, then [Bailey] went ahead — blindly went ahead and did it.” Bailey testified that, after Siegelman’s election in 1998, Siegelman met with Eric Hanson, an outside lobbyist for Health-South, and told Hanson that because Scrushy had contributed at least $350,000 to Siegelman’s opponent in the election, Scrushy needed to “do” at least $500,000 in order to “make it right” with the Siegelman campaign. Bailey testified that Siegelman was referring to the campaign for the lottery initiative, and that Hanson was to relay this conversation to Scrushy. Bailey also testified that, in another conversation, Hanson told Bailey that Scrushy wanted control of the CON Board. Mike Martin is the former Chief Financial Officer of HealthSouth. He testified that having influence over the CON Board was important to Scrushy and Health-South because it determined the number of healthcare facilities in the state, thereby affecting HealthSouth’s ability to grow. He testified that Scrushy told him that to “have some influence or a spot on the CON Board,” they had to help Siegelman raise money for the lottery campaign. Scrushy said that if they did so, “[they] would be assured a seat on the CON Board.” Martin testified, “[W]e were making a contribution ... in exchange for a spot on the CON Board.” Bailey testified that lobbyist Hanson “made it clear to him that if Mr. Scrushy gave the $500,000 to the lottery campaign that we could not let him down” with respect to the CON Board seat. Bailey also testified that he “reminded the Governor periodically of the conversations that [Bailey] had with Eric Hanson and the conversations that the Governor had with Eric Hanson about what Mr. Scrushy wanted for his contributions, and that was the CON Board.” Martin also testified that Scrushy told him that HealthSouth could not make the payment to the lottery campaign, nor could he do it personally because “we [Health-South] had not supported that and that his wife, Leslie, was against the lottery, and it would just look bad if HealthSouth made a direct contribution to the lottery, so we needed to ask — he instructed me in particular to ask our investment banker, Bill McGahan, from [the Swiss bank] UBS, to make the contribution.” Bill McGahan did not want to make such an “out of the norm” donation and hoped the matter would “go away.” Over the next two weeks, Martin called McGahan at least once a day to ask him about the status of the UBS donation, and told McGahan that Scrushy was going to fire UBS if it did not make the contribution. Finally, Martin testified, Scrushy himself called McGahan to “put more pressure” on him to make the contribution. McGahan testified that he did not want UBS to make such a large contribution directly, so he told Martin that he would get Integrated Health Services (“IHS”) of Maryland to make the donation to the lottery campaign in exchange for UBS reducing an outstanding fee that IHS owed UBS. IHS agreed to this arrangement and donated $250,000 to the Foundation in exchange for a reduction of $267,000 in the fee it owed UBS. The IHS “donation” was in the form of a check dated July 19, 1999, made payable from itself to the Foundation. Martin testified that Scrushy told him it was important that he, Scrushy, hand deliver the IHS check to Siegelman, so Martin delivered the check to Scrushy so that he could do so. Some time later, Siegelman and Scrushy met in Siegelman’s office. Bailey testified that after Scrushy left, Siegelman showed the IHS check to Bailey and told him that Scrushy was “halfway there.” Bailey asked, “what in the world is he [Scrushy] going to want for that?” Siegelman replied, “the CON Board.” Bailey then asked, “I wouldn’t think that would be a problem, would it?” Siegelman responded, “I wouldn’t think so.” Siegelman appointed Scrushy to the CON Board on July 26, 1999 — one week after the date on the IHS check. Siegelman directed Bailey to contact the Board chair-designee to tell her that Siegelman wanted Scrushy to be vice-chair of the CON Board, and the Board so chose. Bailey testified that Siegelman made Scrushy vice-chair “[b]ecause [Scrushy] asked for it.” Scrushy stayed on the Board until January of 2001, at which time Siegelman appointed Thom Carman, HealthSouth’s vice-president, to the remainder of Scrushy’s term. Siegelman subsequently reappointed Carman to a full term. While Carman was on the Board, HealthSouth successfully applied for and received Certificates of Need for a mobile PET scanner and a rehabilitation hospital. Darren Cline, the Foundation’s fundraising director, testified that Siegelman gave him the IHS check and told him it was from Scrushy. Cline was concerned about the amount of the donation from one person, and Siegelman told him to hold the check. In November of 1999, however, at Siegelman’s direction, Bailey retrieved the check and opened a new checking account in the Foundation’s name at a Birmingham bank. Bailey made an initial deposit of $275,000 — the $250,000 IHS check and a $25,000 check from another company. Cline was never told. On March 9, 2000, the Foundation borrowed, from the same Birmingham bank, $730,789.29 to repay the Alabama Democratic Party’s debt in connection with the lottery initiative and Siegelman guaranteed the loan. At that time, the Foundation had over $447,000 in its checking account at the bank, $250,000 of which had come from the IHS check deposited in November of 1999. On March 13, 2000, $440,000 was debited from the account to pay down the Foundation’s loan. In May, Siegelman and Bailey traveled to HealthSouth’s headquarters in Birmingham, where Siegelman met privately with Scrushy in Scrushy’s office. At that meeting, Scrushy gave Siegelman a check issued by HealthSouth for $250,000 payable to the Foundation. On May 23, 2000, the $250,000 check was applied directly against the Foundation’s loan balance. The Foundation was required to disclose contributions received and expenditures made in statements filed with the Alabama Secretary of State. It failed to file timely any disclosure regarding any funds received until July of 2002, after Alabama newspapers questioned whether the financial dealings between the Foundation and the Alabama Democratic Party had been properly reported and the Secretary of State’s Office had written a letter to the state Attorney General’s Office about the Foundation’s non-disclosure of the payoff of the Democratic Party’s campaign loan. All funds received were then reported. Lanny Young was a long-time business associate of Siegelman’s who testified that he was part of a “pay-to-play” arrangement with Siegelman existing over many years. He testified that he would provide money, campaign contributions, and other benefits in return for official action, as needed, that benefitted Young’s business interests. He testified that in January of 2000, Siegelman asked him for $9,200 to buy a motorcycle. The evidence was that Siegelman had already purchased the motorcycle. Young testified that he and Bailey worked out the details for the transaction. Bailey testified that he did not want Young to give the money directly to Siegelman, so Bailey told Young to write the check to him, Bailey, which he deposited into his own account. He then wrote a check to Lori Allen, Siegelman’s wife, which he gave to Siegelman and which was deposited into Siegelman’s bank account that same day. There was testimony that a check written to the IRS for fourth quarter estimated taxes would not have cleared the account but for the $9200 deposit. By June of 2001, Siegelman was well aware of the federal-state investigation into the Foundation’s finances and his dealings with Young. Bailey and Young each testified that, in an effort to cover up Young’s $9,200 payment to Siegelman, Bailey gave Young a check for $10,503.39, on which he noted “repayment of loan [the $9,200] plus interest” in order to make it appear that he had borrowed the $9,200 from Young. Bailey also wrote a check to Siegelman for $2,973.35 with the notation “balance due on m/c” to provide a reason for his borrowing money from Young, which was to purchase the motorcycle from Siegelman. Bailey testified that he did not borrow the money to buy the motorcycle, but that Young’s $9,200 had gone through him to Siegelman and “we used the motorcycle to cover it up.” Bailey testified that Siegelman was aware of and approved Bailey’s writing of the $10,503.39 check to Young. Bailey testified that he gave Siegelman the $2,973.35 check at the office of Siegelman’s attorney, who, along with Bailey’s own attorney, was present for the transfer. Neither lawyer was told that the purpose of the transaction was part of the coverup of the $9,200 payment from Young to Siegelman. Siegelman accepted the check, and provided Bailey with a bill of sale for the motorcycle, which the attorneys helped finalize. Bailey testified that he lied about the transaction to the lawyers, that he and Siegelman knew that the federal investigation was going on, and that he later lied to federal investigators about the transaction to protect himself and Siegelman. On December 12, 2005, a grand jury returned a second superseding indictment against Siegelman and Scrushy and two other defendants. Both Siegelman and Scrushy were charged with federal funds bribery, honest services conspiracy and honest services mail fraud. Siegelman was also charged with multiple counts of racketeering conspiracy, racketeering, honest services wire fraud, obstruction of justice and extortion. Trial on the indictment began on May 1, 2006. On June 29, 2006, the jury convicted Siegelman and Scrushy on the bribery, conspiracy and honest services mail fraud counts, and Siegelman was convicted of one count of obstruction of justice. The jury acquitted Siegelman on the remaining twenty-two counts. The other two defendants were acquitted on all counts against them. Siegelman and Scrushy were each sentenced to approximately seven years in federal prison. On appeal, Siegelman and Scrushy together allege nine errors in the trial proceedings. With respect to the bribery, conspiracy and honest services mail fraud counts against them, defendants assert that the court’s instructions erroneously failed to require the jury to find a quid pro quo in order to convict; that, in any event, there was insufficient evidence of any quid pro quo; that the bribery counts were barred by the statute of limitations; and that the trial court erroneously admitted hearsay to prove these counts. Defendants also allege that there was juror misconduct requiring the grant of a new trial and that the procedures used to select their grand and petit juries violated the Jury Selection and Services Act of 1968 and the United States Constitution. Siegelman contends that there was insufficient evidence that he obstructed justice and that the district court abused its discretion in sentencing him by upwardly departing from the Sentencing Guidelines. We shall consider each of these allegations of error in turn. III. 1. Counts 3 and k- Federal Funds Bribery. The bribery statute under which defendants were convicted makes it a crime for a state official to corruptly agree to accept anything of value from another person “intending to be influenced” in that person’s favor in an official action. 18 U.S.C. § 666(a)(1)(B). Siegelman and Scrushy’s bribery convictions in this case were based upon the donation Scrushy gave to Siegelman’s education lottery campaign. As such, the convictions impact the First Amendment’s core values — protection of free political speech and the right to support issues of great public importance. It would be a particularly dangerous legal error from a civic point of view to instruct a jury that they may convict a defendant for his exercise of either of these constitutionally protected activities. In a political system that is based upon raising private contributions for campaigns for public office and for issue referenda, there is ample opportunity for that error to be committed. The Supreme Court has guarded against this possibility by interpreting federal law to require more for conviction than merely proof of a campaign donation followed by an act favorable toward the donor. McCormick v. United States, 500 U.S. 257, 111 S.Ct. 1807, 114 L.Ed.2d 307 (1991). In reviewing a Hobbs Act prosecution for the federal crime of extortion under color of official right, the Court said: Serving constituents and supporting legislation that will benefit the district and individuals and groups therein is the everyday business of a legislator. It is also true that campaigns must be run and financed. Money is constantly being solicited on behalf of candidates, who run on platforms and who claim support on the basis of their views and what they intend to do or have done. Whatever ethical considerations and appearances may indicate, to hold that legislators commit the federal crime of extortion when they act for the benefit of constituents or support legislation furthering the interests of some of their constituents, shortly before or after campaign contributions are solicited and received from those beneficiaries, is an unrealistic assessment of what Congress could have meant by making it a crime to obtain property from another, with his consent, “under color of official right.” To hold otherwise would open to prosecution not only conduct that has long been thought to be well within the law but also conduct that in a very real sense is unavoidable so long as election campaigns are financed by private contributions or expenditures, as they have been from the beginning of the Nation. Id. at 272, 111 S.Ct. 1807. To avoid this result, the Court made clear that only if “payments are made in return for an explicit promise or undertaking by the official to perform or not to perform an official act, are they criminal.” Id. at 273, 111 S.Ct. 1807 (emphasis added). The Court quoted the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which had said that: A moment’s reflection should enable one to distinguish, at least in the abstract, a legitimate solicitation from the exaction of a fee for a benefit conferred or an injury withheld. Whether described familiarly as a payoff or with the Latinate precision of quid pro quo, the prohibited exchange is the same: a public official may not demand payment as inducement for the promise to perform (or not to perform) an official act. Id. (quoting United States v. Dozier, 672 F.2d 531, 537 (5th Cir.1982)). While the Supreme Court has not yet considered whether the federal funds bribery, conspiracy or honest services mail fraud statutes require a similar “explicit promise,” the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals has observed that extortion and bribery are but “different sides of the same coin.” United States v. Allen, 10 F.3d 405, 411 (7th Cir.1993). The district court in this case instructed the jury that they could not convict the defendants of bribery in this case unless “the defendant and the official agree that the official will take specific action in exchange for the thing of value.” (emphasis added). This instruction was fashioned by the court in direct response to defendants’ request for a quid pro quo instruction, and was given in addition to the Eleventh Circuit’s pattern jury instruction for § 666 bribery cases. So, even if a quid pro quo instruction was required, such an instruction was given. Defendants, however, assert that this instruction was inadequate under McCormick. Defendants assert that the instruction failed to tell the jury that not only must they find that Siegelman and Scrushy agreed to a quid pro quo, the CON Board seat for the donation, but that this agreement had to be express. We disagree that McCormick requires such an instruction. McCormick uses the word “explicit” when describing the sort of agreement that is required to convict a defendant for extorting campaign contributions. Explicit, however, does not mean express. Defendants argue that only “proof of actual conversations by defendants,” will do, suggesting in their brief that only express words of promise overheard by third parties or by means of electronic surveillance will do. But McCormick does not impose such a stringent standard. One year after McCormick, the Supreme Court approved the following jury instruction: However, if a public official demands or accepts money in exchange for [a] specific requested exercise of his or her official power, such a demand or acceptance does constitute a violation of the [federal extortion statute] regardless of whether the payment is made in the form of a campaign contribution. Evans v. United States, 504 U.S. 255, 258, 112 S.Ct. 1881, 119 L.Ed.2d 57 (1992). The Court held that the instruction “satisfies the quid pro quo requirement of McCormick v. United States.” Id. at 268, 112 S.Ct. 1881. The Court said that the “Government need only show that a public official has obtained a payment to which he was not entitled, knowing that the payment was made in return for official acts.” Id. The instruction approved in Evans required that the acceptance of the campaign donation be in return for a specific official action — a quid pro quo. No generalized expectation of some future favorable action will do. The official must agree to take or forego some specific action in order for the doing of it to be criminal under § 666. In the absence of such an agreement on a specific action, even a close-in-time relationship between the donation and the act will not suffice. But there is no requirement that this agreement be memorialized in a writing, or even, as defendants suggest, be overheard by a third party. Since the agreement is for some specific action or inaction, the agreement must be explicit, but there is no requirement that it be express. To hold otherwise, as Justice Kennedy noted in Evans, would allow defendants to escape criminal liability through “knowing winks and nods.” 504 U.S. at 274, 112 S.Ct. 1881 (Kennedy, J. concurring). See also United States v. Blandford, 33 F.3d 685, 696 (6th Cir.1994) (“Evans instructed that by ‘explicit’ McCormick did not mean express”); accord United States v. Giles, 246 F.3d 966, 972 (7th Cir.2001); United States v. Tucker, 133 F.3d 1208, 1215 (9th Cir.1998); United States v. Hairston, 46 F.3d 361, 365 (4th Cir.1995). Furthermore, an explicit agreement may be “implied from [the official’s] words and actions.” Evans, 504 U.S. at 274, 112 S.Ct. 1881 (Kennedy, J., concurring). As Justice Kennedy explained: The criminal law in the usual course concerns itself with motives and consequences, not formalities. And the [jury] is quite capable of deciding the intent with which words were spoken or actions taken as well as the reasonable construction given to them by the official and the payor. Id. See also United States v. Massey, 89 F.3d 1433, 1439 (11th Cir.1996) (holding that bribery conviction under general federal bribery statute, 18 U.S.C. § 201, may be supported by “inferences drawn from relevant and competent circumstantial evidence”). In this case, the jury was instructed that they could not convict the defendants of bribery unless they found that “the Defendant and official agree[d] that the official will take specific action in exchange for the thing of value.” This instruction required the jury to find an agreement to exchange a specific official action for a campaign contribution. Finding this fact would satisfy McCormick’s requirement for an explicit agreement involving a quid pro quo. Therefore, even assuming a quid pro quo instruction is required to convict the defendants under § 666, we find no reversible error in the bribery instructions given by the district court. Furthermore, the evidence of a corrupt agreement between Siegelman and Scrushy to exchange the CON Board seat for a campaign donation was sufficient to permit a reasonable juror to find such a quid pro quo. 2. Counts 5, 6, 7, 8, 9: Honest Services Mail Fraud & Conspiracy Counts 6, 7, 8 and 9 charge Siegelman and Scrushy with violations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341 and 1346, which criminalize the use of the mails “to deprive another of the intangible right of honest services.” Count 5 charges the defendants with a conspiracy to commit these “honest services” offenses, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371. Both defendants were convicted of all these counts. After the defendants were convicted, the Supreme Court had the opportunity to consider the reach of these honest services criminal statutes. In Skilling v. United States, 561 U.S. -, 130 S.Ct. 2896, 177 L.Ed.2d 619 (2010), the Court held that Congress intended these statutes to reach only those schemes to defraud the public that are based upon allegations of bribery and/or kickbacks. After Skilling, therefore, prosecutions based upon any other theory — for example, self-dealing — are not permitted. The defendants contend that Skilling, and other errors, require that their honest services convictions be overturned. A. Counts 6 and 7: The Bribery of Siegelman as Honest Services Fraud Counts 6 and 7 charge that Scrushy’s bribery of Siegelman deprived the public of the right to the defendant’s honest services. Thus, there is no Skilling error here — a bribery (or kickback) scheme is required under Skilling and one was alleged. Notwithstanding this fact, the defendants assert that their convictions on these counts must be reversed because the jury was not instructed that the government was required to prove a quid pro quo in order to convict them on a bribery theory of honest services fraud. We find no merit in this contention. The honest services fraud alleged in Counts 6 and 7 of the indictment is predicated upon the same pay-to-play scheme that was alleged in the § 666 bribery counts — Counts 3 and 4. Without deciding whether a quid pro quo must be proved in an honest services bribery prosecution, we hold that any error in the honest services instructions as to Counts 6 and 7 was harmless. Since Counts 6 and 7 re-allege the pay-to-play scheme charged in Counts 3 and 4, the jury instructions as to all these counts may be read in tandem. On Counts 3 and 4, the jury was instructed that they could not convict Scrushy of bribing Siegelman unless they found that the defendants “agree[d] that the official will take specific action in exchange for the thing of value.” Having been instructed they must find a quid pro quo to convict of the bribery alleged in Counts 3 and 4, and having done so, any error in the honest services instructions as to Counts 6 and 7 was harmless. See Cupp v. Naughten, 414 U.S. 141, 148-48, 94 S.Ct. 396, 38 L.Ed.2d 368. (1973) (jury instructions must be evaluated as a whole). Therefore, we shall affirm defendants’ convictions on Counts 5, 6 and 7. B. Counts 8 and 9: Scrushy’s Self-Dealing Counts 8 and 9 allege a broader scheme than that alleged in Counts 6 and 7. These counts allege that Scrushy “would and did use his seat on the CON Board to attempt to affect the interests of Health-South and its competitors,” and that Scrushy “would and did offer things of value to another Board member to attempt to affect the interests of HealthSouth and its competitors.” Although Scrushy was not on the Board when the alleged self-dealing occurred, the indictment charged that it was part of the scheme that Siegelman and Scrushy “orchestrated Scrushy’s replacement on the Board by another person employed by HealthSouth.” The mailings charged in connection with these allegations were letters sent by the Board to HealthSouth, notifying it that it had been awarded Certificates of Need in connection with the rehabilitation hospital (Count 8) and the PET scanner (Count 9). Although Counts 8 and 9 incorporate the bribery scheme, thus surviving Skilling, they allege a broader scheme of which, Siegelman argues, he was unaware and in which he did not participate. He contends that there was no evidence at trial to link him to Scrushy’s self-dealing scheme. We agree. Siegelman may be held criminally liable for Scrushy’s conduct on the Board only if he was a knowing party to a scheme that included that conduct. United States v. Toney, 598 F.2d 1349, 1355 (5th Cir.1979). It was the government’s theory, argued at trial and in its brief on appeal, that not only did Siegelman know that Scrushy wanted the seat in order to self-deal on the CON Board, but that “it was certainly foreseeable to Siegelman that Scrushy would bribe another Board member to further HealthSouth’s interests” since “[ajfter all, Scrushy paid Siegelman $500,000 to get HealthSouth a seat on the Board in the first place.” The problem for the government is that there was scant evidence at trial to support this position. The evidence at trial was that Scrushy resigned from his seat on the Board in January of 2001 and that, the next day, Siegelman appointed Thom Carman, HealthSouth vice-president, to the remainder of the term. When Scrushy’s term expired in July, Siegelman reappointed Carman. While on the Board, Carman employed another member of the Board, Tim Adams, to prepare the application for the PET scanner, paying him $8000 to do so. There was also testimony that Adams was paid another $3000 for “additional work he apparently had done on the PET scanner application” in return for his agreement to attend the CON Board meeting at which HealthSouth’s application for a rehabilitation hospital in Phenix City was considered. At the meeting, Carman recused himself from voting on the application. Adams attended, and although he abstained from voting, under the Board’s rules, his abstention did not affect the quorum his presence established, thus permitting a vote to be taken. There was no opposition to the application and the Board unanimously approved the application. Six months later, the PET scanner application was also approved. At this meeting, Adams’ presence was not necessary to the quorum. Carman recused himself, and Adams abstained from voting. The application was unopposed and passed unanimously. Alva Lambert, the Executive Director of the Board, testified that unopposed applications were routinely approved, and that both these applications were consistent with prior Board actions. There was no evidence that Siegelman knew of Carman’s actions in hiring Adams to prepare the application. There was no evidence that he knew of any of these Board actions. The testimony in support of the government’s allegation of a pay-to-play scheme whereby Scrushy paid Siegelman for a seat on the CON Board came principally from Bailey, Martin, Young, McGahan, and Skelton. Of these witnesses, only Skelton, HealthSouth’s lawyer in charge of certificates of need, had any knowledge about Scrushy’s subsequent alleged self-dealing while on the CON Board. Her testimony, however, did not mention Siegelman. Alva Lambert, the Executive Director of the CON Board during the relevant time and the other primary government witness in support of the allegations of Scrushy self-dealing, testified that the Siegelman CON Board was an “extremely well-balanced” Board, that CON Boards had never to his knowledge turned down an application for a PET scanner, and that he never saw Siegelman exert any influence or try to exert any influence whatsoever over a Board decision. Neither in its brief nor at oral argument did the government point to any testimony in support of its allegation that Siegelman and Scrushy agreed to a broader scheme in which Scrushy would self-deal on the Board. Nor has our independent and careful review of record revealed any. Rather, the government’s brief argues that Siegelman’s knowing participation in the broader self-dealing scheme may be inferred from three facts proven at trial: first, that Siegelman and Scrushy agreed to exchange the CON Board seat for money; second, that the amended Foundation financial statements that disclosed the Scrushy donations, which were filed around the time of the mailings, did not list Scrushy as the ultimate source of the IHS check; and third, that Siegelman was still governor when the PET scanner and Phenix City projects were approved and could have removed Scrushy or Carman from the Board at any time. The first two of these facts relate primarily to the initial pay-to-play scheme, and the final fact is not sufficient to show participation in a broader scheme, much less knowing participation. None is remotely sufficient to permit a jury to infer that Siegelman agreed to a broader self-dealing scheme. In view of this absolute lack of any evidence whatsoever from which the jury could infer that Siegelman knowingly agreed to or participated in a broader scheme that included Scrushy’s alleged subsequent self-dealing while on the Board, we shall reverse Siegelman’s convictions on Counts 8 and 9. As to Scrushy’s convictions on Counts 8 and 9, one thing is clear. After Skilling, his conviction cannot rest upon the self-dealing theory articulated in the indictment. The government, therefore, points to other allegations in Counts 8 and 9 that Scrushy bribed Tim Adams (a member of the CON Board) in order to obtain favorable CON Board action on the two HealthSouth applications. This post -Skilling theory of Scrushy’s honest services fraud as to the Board remains viable. The issue on appeal, then, is whether the government sufficiently proved that Scrushy bribed Adams. The government’s proof of these allegations was that Scrushy resigned from his seat on the CON Board in January of 2001 and that, the next day, Siegelman appointed Thom Carman, HealthSouth vice-president, to the remainder of the term. Carman employed another member of the Board, Tim Adams, to prepare the application for the PET scanner, paying him $8000 for the work. There was testimony that Scrushy “was aware” of this. There was also testimony that Adams was paid another $3000 for “additional work he apparently had done on the PET scanner application” in return for his agreement to attend the CON Board meeting at which HealthSouth’s application for a rehabilitation hospital in Phenix City was considered. Lori Skelton, a HealthSouth lawyer testified that Adams had never written a CON Board application and that his work was substandard. At the meeting during which the hospital application was considered, Adams attended but abstained from voting, as he had prepared the application. Under the rules, his abstention did not affect the quorum, thus permitting a vote to be taken. There was no opposition to the application and the Board unanimously approved the application. Six months later the PET scanner application was also approved. At this meeting, Adams’ presence was not necessary to the quorum, and he again abstained from voting. The application was unopposed and passed unanimously. Alva Lambert, the Executive Director of the board testified that the unopposed applications were routinely approved, and that both these applications were consistent with prior board actions. There was no evidence that Scrushy knew of any of these actions. During closing, the government primarily argued the Siegelman/Scrushy pay-to-play conspiracy, but did say that: [Scrushy’s] own lawyer [Skelton] told you that Adams began to ask him for stuff, and they began to be concerned that he was trying to use his position. And they were concerned that he might harm their interests. So what did they do? Did they report him? No, because that’s not why Scrushy was up here. He was trying to influence him. What did he do? He paid him, even though his lawyer told him you need to leave this guy alone; this isn’t good. The government also argued that, as a result of the CON Board seat, Scrushy was able “to start manipulating Tim Adams’ activities, start courting him and bringing him down and engaging in agreements to give him money.” We conclude that the evidence that Scrushy bribed Adams is insufficient to support Scrushy’s conviction on these counts. The evidence at best shows only that Skelton hired Adams to prepare the scanner application, which he did, and for which he was paid. Scrushy was “aware” of this. The government’s ease, even in Counts 8 and 9, was always primarily focused on the pay-to-play scheme between Scrushy and Siegelman. The vast majority of the allegations and testimony went to prove this scheme. The government always described the scheme alleged in Counts 8 and 9 as self-dealing, and its attempt now — post-Skilling—to emphasize the alleged bribery of Adams finds some, but not much, support in the proof. The evidence that Adams intended to alter his official actions as a result of the receipt of benefits from Scrushy is insufficient, and Scrushy’s convictions on Counts 8 and 9 must be reversed. 3. Count 17: Obstruction of Justice Siegelman was charged with two counts of obstruction of justice. The indictment alleged and the government undertook to prove that eighteen months after the $9200 pay-to-play payment to Siegelman from Lanny Young, Siegelman and Bailey became aware of the federal-state corruption investigation and instigated a series of sham check transactions in an effort to cover up the payment. The eoverup was designed to make it appear that Bailey had borrowed the $9200 from Young so that he could buy a motorcycle from Siegelman. Count 16 alleged that Siegelman eorruptly persuaded Bailey to write a check for $10,503 to Young with the notation “repayment of loan plus interest.” Count 17 alleged that Siegelman corruptly persuaded Bailey to write and give him a check for $2973.35 with the notation on it that it was the “balance due on m/c.” Count 17 also alleged that Siegelman engaged in misleading Bailey’s attorney with the intent to hinder or prevent the attorney’s communication of information regarding these transactions to the FBI. The jury acquitted Siegelman of Count 16, but convicted him on Count 17. Siegelman contends that the evidence was insufficient to show that he persuaded Bailey to write the check charged in Count 17 or that he misled Bailey’s attorney. We turn now to the evidence. At trial, Young testified that in January of 2000, Siegelman asked him for $9200 to buy a motorcycle and that he gave it to Siegelman as part of the pay-to-play, ongoing agreement he had with Siegelman. He also testified that, eighteen months later, after the federal-state corruption investigation began, he and Bailey had the following conversation: Young: Right after the investigation started, Nick [Bailey] called me and asked me if I could recall how I made out the check for the motorcycle. And I said — on what account I had written the check for the motorcycle. And I said no, why? He said because if it’s on one of your personal accounts, you are going to have a motorcycle in your driveway tonight. Bailey testified that the coverup began when: Bailey: I found out about the investigation that was going on with Lanny— could have involved others; we weren’t sure at the time. I wanted to repay Lanny’s $9200. I did it in the form of a check. Did a promissory note with Lanny to repay this $9200 plus interest, $10,503. Bailey gave the following testimony regarding Siegelman’s involvement in this first step in the coverup: Government: When you went to write this check to Lanny [Young] to disguise this earlier transaction, did you do that with the knowledge of the Governor? Bailey: Yes. Government: Did you talk to him about it before you did it? Bailey: Yes. Government: Was he in agreement with you doing that? Bailey: Yes. Government: When you talked to him about why you were going to do that, did you guys talk about the fact that this criminal investigation was going on? Bailey: Yes. Government: What were you and the Governor trying to accomplish when you wrote that check back to Lanny Young 17 months after that check had been written for $9200 to the Governor? Bailey: To disguise the $9200 that went from Lanny to me to the Governor. Young’s testimony regarding the purported repayment was: Government: Had you loaned Nick Bailey any money that would cause him to give you that $10,503 check? Young: No. Government: Well, what was going on when he wrote you that check, if you know? Young: He was trying to make the $9200 look like a loan. Bailey testified that the final step in the coverup was to give Siegelman a $2,793.35 check with the notation on it that it was “balance due on m/c” to make it appear that the check was Bailey’s final payment for the motorcycle. His testimony about Siegelman’s involvement in this step of the coverup was: Government: What was going on here? Bailey: We made a decision to finalize the agreement we made regarding the motorcycle early on, and this was to finish that. We met at the Governor’s attorney’s office and with my attorney, and that’s when I finished paying the Governor in full for the motorcycle to carry out the plan that we had entered into probably 12 to 18 months earlier. Government: And what was that plan? Bailey: To disguise the $9200 from Lanny to the Governor. Finally, Bailey testified regarding his interview with the FBI regarding this meeting: Government: Now, not long after [he gave the check to Siegelman] you had an occasion to be interviewed by federal and state criminal investigators, didn’t you. Bailey: Yes, sir. Government: When they questioned you about this transaction on that occasion, did you tell them the truth about what had happened? Bailey: No. Government: Why not? Bailey: There were a number of reasons; but primarily, I was still trying to protect myself and my boss. The jury considered all of this testimony and found Siegelman guilty of the obstruction of justice charged in Count 17, but not in Count 16. This means that the jury decided, as a matter of fact, that Siegelman persuaded Bailey to write the check for $2973.35, but not the initial check for $10,500. In evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence to support the jury’s verdict, we are required to “view the evidence in the light most favorable to the government and resolve all reasonable inferences and credibility evaluations in favor of the jury’s verdict.” United States v. Robertson, 493 F.3d 1322, 1329 (11th Cir.2007). The evidence needs not “be wholly inconsistent with every conclusion except that of guilt, provided that a reasonable trier of fact could find that the evidence established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). A reasonable juror could have concluded that Siegelman persuaded Bailey (he asked and Bailey agreed) to take the final step in the coverup by giving him a $2793.35 check with the notation that it was final payment for the motorcycle. See United States v. Tocco, 135 F.3d 116, 126-27 (2d Cir.1998) (affirming jury inference of persuasion from defendant’s strong influence over witness who was employee); United States v. Morrison, 98 F.3d 619, 629-30 (D.C.Cir.1996) (making a request sufficient persuasion). The testimony was that Siegelman knew and agreed that Bailey would disguise Young’s payment to Siegelman as a loan to Bailey to buy the motorcycle by “paying back” Young with his own check. The evidence further showed that Siegelman accepted and cashed the $2973.35 check from Bailey with the notation that it was final payment for the motorcycle. Finally, the jury had heard testimony that Bailey always did what Siegelman asked him to do. The jury’s acquittal on Count 16 shows that it was not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that Siegelman instigated the coverup by directing Bailey to “pay back” Young with the initial $10,500 check. But, by the time Bailey wrote the check to Siegelman for $2793.35, just over four months later, as a final step in the coverup, the jury’s conviction on Count 17 indicates that it concluded Siegelman not only knew what Bailey was doing to cover up Young’s corrupt payment, but that he was directing the coverup by persuading Bailey to write the check to him. This sort of split verdict is itself evidence that the jury considered the charges carefully and individually, addressed the strength of the evidence on each charge, and reached a reasoned conclusion. See United States v. Dominguez, 226 F.3d 1235, 1248 (11th Cir.2000) (making these comments in the context of allegations of premature jury deliberations). Siegelman’s argument against the sufficiency of this evidence is the same he made against his convictions on virtually all the other counts — that the evidence in this case was not perfect, that it relied too heavily on circumstances and required the jury to draw inferences from those circumstances that might have been drawn differently by different jurors. But this is far too academic a view of trial by jury. In the absence of a defendant’s confession or observation of his wrongdoing by a third person, proof by circumstantial evidence and the fair inferences to be drawn therefrom is both necessary and permissible. Siegelman’s contention throughout his brief that “there was no evidence” to support a particular inference too often means merely that there was no evidence other than Bailey or Young’s testimony. While Siegelman may not approve that the testimony of co-conspirators was sufficient to support the jury’s findings of fact, the jury was free to disregard or disbelieve it. They believed it. With respect to the “misleading” prong of the statute, the evidence was more than sufficient to support the jury’s finding that the delivery of the final check in the presence of the two lawyers and the use of the lawyers to “finalize” the sale of the motorcycle to Bailey was an attempt to “create witnesses as part of a cover-up and to use unwitting third parties or entities to deflect the efforts of law enforcement agents in discovering the truth,” United States v. Veal, 153 F.3d 1233, 1247 (11th Cir.1998) (statute satisfied by “the possibility or likelihood that [the defendants’] false and misleading information would be transferred to federal authorities ... ”). The jury was entitled to infer from the sham check transaction in Bailey’s lawyer’s presence that Siegelman intended to mislead the lawyer into believing that the transaction was legitimate, that Bailey had, indeed, purchased the motorcycle from him, and that the check was final payment. As the “unwitting third party,” the lawyer would be in a position factually to support the coverup since Siegelman clearly knew that there was a “possibility” that the federal investigators would come asking. 4. Admission of a Co-conspirator’s Statement Defendants challenge the admission of Hanson’s out-of-court statement to Martin at a HealthSouth retreat in the fall of 1999. Martin testified that Hanson “was bragging about the fact that he was able to get [HealthSouth] a spot on the CON Board with the help of the [IHS] check.” Under Fed.R.Evid. 801(d)(2)(E), a court has the discretion to admit co-conspirator statements made during and in furtherance of the conspiracy. The court’s admission of such statements is an abuse of its discretion to do so if the statements do not meet this legal standard. United States v. Magluta, 418 F.3d 1166 (11th Cir.2005). This court applies a liberal standard in determining whether a statement was in furtherance of a conspiracy. United States v. Santiago, 837 F.2d 1545, 1549 (11th Cir.1988). “The statement need not be necessary to the conspiracy, but must only further the interests of the conspiracy in some way.” United States v. Miles, 290 F.3d 1341, 1351 (11th Cir.2002). “[I]f the statement ‘could have been intended to affect future dealings between the parties,’ then the statement is in furtherance of a conspiracy.” United States v. Caraza, 843 F.2d 432, 436 (11th Cir.1988) (quoting United States v. Patton, 594 F.2d 444, 447 (5th Cir.1979)). Finally, “[statements between conspirators which provide reassurance, serve to maintain trust and cohesiveness among them, or inform each other of the current status of the conspiracy further the ends of the conspiracy .... ” United States v. Ammar 714 F.2d 238, 252 (3d Cir.1983). Even defendants concede that boasting or bragging is in furtherance of a conspiracy if the statements are directed at obtaining the confidence or allaying the suspicions of co-conspirators. Santiago, 837 F.2d at 1549. Hanson’s statement at the Health-South retreat furthered the conspiracy. We agree with the government that, given Martin’s own involvement in the conspiracy (obtaining the IHS check), Hanson’s bragging to him about purchasing the CON Board seat “with the help of’ the IHS check informed Martin that their plan had worked and that Martin’s involvement had helped. This alone is sufficient to permit its introduction under Ammar 714 F.2d at 252. Additionally, however, the statement is easily seen to affect the co-conspirators’ future dealings because Martin’s assistance might be needed in connection with the second $250,000 donation and Hanson knew this. Thus, Hanson’s statement easily meets the Caraza standard. 843 F.2d at 436 (approving statement admitted after several acts of conspiracy helping to ensure final acts). The district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting this evidence. 5. Juror Misconduct Defendants filed a joint motion for a new trial under Fed.R.Crim.P. 33(a), alleging juror misconduct by way of both juror exposure to extraneous information as well as by improper juror deliberation and that each impropriety violated the Sixth Amendment and requires a new trial. After conducting two evidentiary hearings on this issue, the district court held that no substantial violation of the Sixth Amendment occurred that required a new trial. We review the denial of a motion for new trial based on alleged juror misconduct for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Venske, 296 F.3d 1284, 1290 (11th Cir.2002). We will consider each of the claims of misconduct in turn. A. Juror Exposure to Extraneous Information The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees the right to trial by an impartial jury. U.S. Const. amend. VI. To protect the right to an impartial jury, the Supreme Court has recognized that “[d]ue process means a jury capable and willing to decide the case solely on the evidence before it, and a trial judge ever watchful to prevent prejudicial occurrences and to determine the effect of such occurrences when they happen.” Smith v. Phillips, 455 U.S. 209, 217, 102 S.Ct. 940, 71 L.Ed.2d 78 (1982). The jury must determine guilt solely on the basis of the evidence presented at trial and the court’s instructions as to the applicable law. Turner v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 466, 472-73, 85 S.Ct. 546, 13 L.Ed.2d 424 (1965). We presume, however, that the jury has been impartial. United States v. Winkle, 587 F.2d 705, 714 (5th Cir.1979). A defendant who alleges denial of this right resulting from juror exposure to extraneous information has the burden of making a colorable showing that the exposure has, in fact, occurred. Id. See also United States v. Ayarza-Garcia, 819 F.2d 1043, 1051 (11th Cir.1987). If the defendant does so, prejudice to the defendant is presumed and the burden shifts to the government to show “that the jurors’ consideration of extrinsic evidence was harmless to the defendant.” Remmer v. United States, 347 U.S. 227, 74 S.Ct. 450, 98 L.Ed. 654 (1954); United States v. Ronda, 455 F.3d 1273, 1299 (11th Cir.2006). If the district court concludes the exposure to the extrinsic evidence was harmless to the defendant, on appeal, we review this conclusion for an abuse of discretion. Id. at 1296 n. 33. In doing so, we look at all the circumstances and we consider: (1) the nature of the extrinsic evidence; (2) the manner in which it reached the jury; (3) the factual findings in the district court and the manner of the court’s inquiry into the juror issues; and, (4) the strength of the government’s case. Id. at 1299-1300. Defendants attached several exhibits to their motion regarding juror misconduct, including news articles after the trial and copies of affidavits by Juror 5 and his wife and his wife’s pastor. This material, especially the affidavit of Juror 5, suggested that, during the trial, some of the jurors may have seen information about the trial on the internet. Finding that the defendants had made a colorable showing of extrinsic influence on the jury, the district court held a hearing to which all twelve jurors were summoned and told to bring with them any material related to outside information that they or any other juror considered during trial or deliberations. At the hearing, the court asked each juror a series of twelve questions designed to reveal the nature and extent of any extrinsic evidence to which the jurors were exposed. Each juror testified under oath in response to the twelve questions and follow-up questions. Based upon this testimony, the district court found that there was credible evidence establishing that during deliberations some of the jurors were exposed to the following extrinsic evidence: (1) a copy of the Second Superseding Indictment obtained from the district court’s own website; and (2) juror information from the website concerning the foreperson’s obligation to preside over the jury’s deliberations and to give every juror a fair opportunity to express his views. 1. Exposure to a Book About the Role of the Foreperson As a matter of fact, and based upon the testimony given by the jurors in the hearing, the district court found that the extrinsic evidence accessed from the district court’s own website by Juror 7 and mentioned by him in jury deliberations did not pertain to any substantive issue in defendants’ trial. It concerned only the process of deliberation. Furthermore, it did not contradict any instruction given by the court, was consulted and discussed for only a few moments of a more than five-day deliberation. It was discussed to encourage full participation by all the jurors. The district court concluded that the exposure of the jury to this extrinsic information was harmless to the defendants. We agree. In substantially similar circumstances, we affirmed a district court’s decision that a new trial was not required in a case where the jury foreman went to the library and checked out a book entitled What You Need to Know for Jury Duty, and then exposed the jury to it. United States v. De La Vega, 913 F.2d 861, 869 (11th Cir.1990). In that case, the foreperson read the book, implemented suggestions for jury procedures outlined in the book, brought the book to the jury room, and showed some other jurors a page in the book that outlined organizational steps for deliberation. Id. at 869-70. We held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that there was no reasonable possibility that the introduction of this extrinsic information prejudiced the defendants such that a new trial was required. Id. at 870-71. The district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that the introduction of similar information in this case was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. The district court carefully investigated this matter. Its factual findings that this information was unrelated to the charges or any evidentiary matter in the case, and that it was introduced by a juror, not an outside influence, are not clearly erroneous. Furthermore, the district court held, and we agree, that the government’s case was strong on the counts of conviction. In view of these findings, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in holding that there was no reasonable possibility of prejudice to the defendants arising out of the exposure of the jury to this extrinsic evidence and denying the motion for a new trial. 2. Exposure to the Unredacted Second Superseding Indictment During trial, the district court granted the government’s motion to cure what the court had determined was multiplicitous charging of the federal funds bribery counts by removing reference to Siegelman in Count 4 and to Serushy in Count 3 of the Second Superseding Indictment. The district court provided the jury with a copy of the resulting redacted Second Superseding Indictment for its deliberations. Based upon its questioning of the jurors, the district court found that Juror 7 and Juror 40 accessed a copy of the unredacted Second Superseding Indictment early during the jury’s deliberations. They each obtained the indictment from the court’s website in order to be able to review the allegations outside of the jury deliberation room. Additionally, some other members of the jury became aware that Jurors 7 and 40 had spent time outside of the jury room reviewing the content of this document. While the jury did not discuss this fact at length, it did discuss it. There was no evidence, however, that any members of the jury other than Jurors 7 and 40 actually read the unredacted Second Superseding Indictment, or that either Juror 7 or Juror 40 ever realized that there was any difference between the two indictments. The district court found that the two jurors had been exposed to the unredacted indictment, which was extrinsic information, and that other jurors had been exposed to the fact that those jurors had obtained a copy of the document from the internet. Considering the totality of the circumstances, including the substantial evidence of defendants’ guilt on the counts of conviction, the district court concluded that the jury’s exposure to this extrinsic information was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt and it denied them a new trial. We agree. This extrinsic evidence was the charging document itself. The district court specifically found that, prior to the redaction, the jurors had been repeatedly exposed to comment by the court and all the parties on the contents of the Second Superseding Indictment. Exposure to the original indictment, including the duplicitous charging, was, therefore, innocuous and cumulative of information properly before the jury. The district court specifically found that the exposure of any juror to