“The court doesn’t necessarily think so because it says more limited interpretation of official act leaves ample room for prosecuting corruption”.
Advertisement
Whether McDonnell’s case will ultimately provide a lifeline to Skelos and Silver – who were both sentenced to prison earlier this year – remains to be seen. “Setting up a meeting, talking to another official, or organizing an event-without more-does not fit that definition of ‘official act'”. Bob McDonnell, supporters say the ruling adds clarity to what acts constitute corruption. The court found that for quid pro quo arrangements to be prosecuted as “honest services” fraud, bribes and kickbacks had to be involved. He could still face a new trial.
The ruling said it is concerned about “the broader legal implications of the government’s boundless interpretation of the federal bribery statute”.
“From the outset, I strongly asserted my innocence before God and under the law”, Mr. McDonnell said in a statement.
There have already been some signs of its potential impact: in NY, a federal judge said last month that former Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, convicted of illegally pocketing $5 million, could wait until after the Supreme Court ruling to report to prison.
It was an unlikely but not unexpected ruling from an eight-member court no longer dominated by conservatives in the wake of Justice Antonin Scalia’s death in February.
A Richmond, Virginia, businessman named Jonnie R. Williams Sr. gave McDonnell and his wife more than $175,000 in loans and gifts – lavish vacations, a Rolex watch and partial payment of a daughter’s wedding reception, among others.
Zeigler says “this court dictum may cover what Siegelman was accused of doing in his federal convictions”. In return, they helped Williams gain access to state university and health care officials who could assist in winning federal approval for one of his products. “The bar is now higher in terms of what you have to prove”, Randall D. Eliason, a former chief of the public corruption section at the United States attorney’s office in Washington told the New York Times.
The issue in the case was whether Gov. McDonnell undertook an “official act” by, for example, “calling an official”, “setting up a meeting”, or “hosting an event” for a donor.
Attorneys for Fattah and Vederman declined to comment on how the U.S. Supreme Court decision may impact post-conviction court filings.
But during McDonnell’s final appeal in April, the majority of SCOTUS justices seemed to indicate that they sided with the disgraced governor, suggesting prosecutors overstepped the legal definition of bribery.
Corruption? No doubt NY lawmakers Sheldon Silver and Dean Skelos and their lawmakers were pleased after the SCOTUS decision.
Chief Justice John Roberts agreed with McDonnell that the jury instruction of “official acts” at his trial was so broad it could include virtually any action a public official might take while in office, leaving politicians across the country subject to the whims of prosecutors.
Advertisement
The New Yorker’s Amy Davidson however suggests the new interpretation in effect means the court has given acts of bribery its “blessing”.
