Ambiguity in the Indictment...hmm I think I know of a County DA that allows that...

In 2005, a jury convicted Robles and Garrido [and sentenced to them to 10 years and 51 month prison terms, respectively] based on an indictment that the 9th Circuit Court of Appeal said [in their review of the convictions] was "ambiguous at best."
,
The 9th Circuit stated: "After reviewing the trial record as a whole, we conclude that there is a reasonable probability that the jury convicted Robles and Garrido of honest services fraud based on their failure to disclose a conflict of interest," the panel wrote. "Because of the emphasis on the conflict of interest theory in the jury instructions and in the closing arguments, we find that the error affected the Appellants' substantial rights."
.
While "there is evidence in the record that could support a bribery or kickback conviction," the panel wrote, " nevertheless, it is impossible to conclude that the jury convicted Robles and Garrido based on their participation in either a bribery or a kickback scheme instead of based on Skilling's unconstitutional failure to disclose a conflict of interest."
.
The 9th Circuit panel reversed honest-services mail & wire fraud convictions on 21 counts against Robles and five counts against Garrido, while acquitting Robles of two counts and Garrido of one count because prosecutors, post-Skilling, admitted they had insufficient evidence.
.
In addition, 9th Circuit panel reversed four money-laundering counts against Robles because they "are predicated on the flawed honest services fraud convictions," while upholding five of Robles' bribery counts.
.
In any county where vague and ambiguous indictments are seen all to often, this case should send a warning.