Background
John David Melton was convicted of conspiracy to violate the Sherman Act for his role in the ready-mix concrete industry in the Southern District of Georgia. The indictment alleged that Melton and others coordinated price increases, rigged bids, and allocated jobs. He was sentenced to twenty-six months of imprisonment followed by three years of supervised release. On appeal, Melton challenged the sufficiency of the evidence, the admission of testimony regarding corporate antitrust training, and the validity of the grand jury proceedings during the pandemic.
The court’s reasoning
The court reviewed the sufficiency of the evidence de novo and found that a reasonable jury could conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Melton participated in an agreement to fix prices, rig bids, or allocate markets. The court noted that per se illegal restraints like price fixing do not require proof of actual anticompetitive effects, only an agreement to engage in the conduct. The court rejected the argument that testimony about corporate antitrust training was prejudicial, noting that the district court instructed the jury to consider the testimony only as to the witnesses’ understanding, not as a statement of law. Finally, the court held that the grand jury’s use of videoconference technology during the pandemic did not violate the Fifth Amendment or Rule six, citing prior precedent.
What it means going forward
The decision reinforces that exchanges of price information among competitors can support a conspiracy conviction if there is evidence of an agreement to fix prices, rig bids, or allocate markets. It also confirms that grand jury proceedings conducted remotely during the pandemic remain valid under current Eleventh Circuit precedent.