A US judge has set aside the college admissions conviction of former University of Southern California water polo coach Jovan Vavic, questioning the basis of his fraud charge if USC also benefited from parental payments.
Mr Vavic, whose men’s and women’s teams won 16 national titles, was convicted in April in federal court in Boston on charges of taking about $250,000 (£220,000) in bribes from two sets of parents in return for securing their children’s admission to USC on the pretence of being competitive water polo players.
US district judge Indira Talwani, in overturning that conviction and granting Mr Vavic a new trial, says that prosecutors improperly told jurors they could convict Mr Vavic if he gained a benefit in the matter, without considering if USC also did.
“However distasteful,” the judge writes, “there is nothing inherently illegal about a private institution accepting money in exchange for a student’s admission.”
The implication of that logic for dozens of other parents and participants convicted in the scandal – the bulk of whom already have served jail time – was not immediately clear.
But one of the two sets of parents connected to Mr Vavic’s case – former Staples and Gap executive John Wilson, found guilty last October of paying $220,000 through Mr Vavic to win his son entry to USC as a water polo recruit – expressed optimism.
Mr Wilson also has been appealing his conviction. And his defence lawyer, Noel Francisco, said in response to the Vavic ruling that federal prosecutors “cannot identify a single example in all American legal history where the victim and beneficiary of a ‘bribe’ were one and the same”.
Mr Vavic’s attorney, Stephen Larson, shared that broad perspective. “As we have demonstrated and the court now confirms,” he said, “there is no evidence that coach Vavic ever used donations to the USC water polo programme for his own benefit.”
The overall scandal became public in 2019 and centred on William Singer, a Los Angeles college admissions consultant who used various tactics to help wealthy parents get their children admitted to elite universities. Mr Singer typically worked with cooperating sports team coaches, who have the power to designate for admission students they certify as bona fide athletes.
A total of 57 people have been charged, mostly parents, and nearly all pleaded guilty or were convicted. USC was by far the leading university by case count, and it was portrayed in trial testimony as having stressed to its employees the importance of monetising its highly competitive sports operations.
Mr Vavic, though, was depicted during his trial as having kept some of the parental payments for personal uses beyond the needs of his teams, and the federal jury took only half a day to convict him on charges of mail and wire fraud, and conspiracy to commit bribery and fraud.
The head of the US Justice Department’s Boston office, which has led the prosecution of the overall scandal, expressed disappointment in Judge Talwani’s ruling. “The jury convicted Mr Vavic on every single count, and we believe they got it right,” US attorney Rachael Rollins said. “At this point, we are reviewing all of our options.”
But Judge Talwani emphasised the failure of the government’s own prosecution team to acknowledge to the jury the importance of also considering USC’s behaviour. “Although the government argues that USC would not have accepted the donations had it known why they were being made, the money benefited USC,” the judge writes, “and USC was content to accept the money at the time it was given, as evidenced by its thank-you notes to the Wilsons and other families.”
USC rejected that interpretation. “While the ruling does not accurately describe USC’s admissions process,” the university said in a statement, “we are not a party to this case and do not wish to interfere with the pending court proceedings.”
