home

Supreme Court Vacates Conviction of VA Ex-Gov McDonell

The Supreme Court has vacated the conviction of Former Virginia Gov. Robert McDonnell:

A jury in September 2014 found unanimously that McDonnell used the governor’s office to help Jonnie R. Williams Sr., a wealthy dietary supplement company executive, advance his business interests. In exchange, Williams gave McDonnell and his wife, Maureen, $177,000 in loans, luxury vacations and a Rolex watch.

Four months later, a federal judge sentenced McDonnell to two years in prison... McDonnell argued that simply referring a constituent to another state official was not among the “official actions” that are barred by the federal law.

The Supreme Court agreed, ruling that setting up a meeting, talking to another official, or organizing an event, without a more specific action, is not “official action.”

[More...]

The question presented to the Supreme Court:

Under the federal bribery statute, Hobbs Act, and honest-services fraud statute, 18 U.S.C. §§ 201, 1346, 1951, it is a felony to agree to take "official action" in exchange for money, campaign contributions, or any other thing of value. The question presented is whether "official action" is limited to exercising actual governmental power, threatening to exercise such power, or pressuring others to exercise such power, and whether the jury must be so instructed; or, if not so limited, whether the Hobbs Act and honest-services fraud statute are unconstitutional.

From the syllabus of the opinion (available here):

© The Government’s expansive interpretation of “official act”would raise significant constitutional concerns. Conscientious public officials arrange meetings for constituents, contact other officials on their behalf, and include them in events all the time. Representative government assumes that public officials will hear from their constituents and act appropriately on their concerns. The Government’s position could cast a pall of potential prosecution over these relationships. This concern is substantial, as recognized by White House counsel from every administration from that of President Reagan to President Obama, as well as two bipartisan groups of former state attorneys general. The Government’s interpretation also raises due process and federalism concerns. Pp. 22–24.

2. Given the Court’s interpretation of “official act,” the District Court’s jury instructions were erroneous, and the jury may have convicted Governor McDonnell for conduct that is not unlawful. Because the errors in the jury instructions are not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, the Court vacates Governor McDonnell’s convictions. Pp. 24–28

Some background is here and here.

< Monday Open Thread | Supreme Court Strikes Down TX Abortion Restrictions >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Personally, having written legislation ... (3.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Jun 27, 2016 at 07:37:47 PM EST
    ... to this effect, I've long interpreted the term "official act" as any action or decision which one might undertake in one's own capacity as an elected or appointed public official.

    Because a governor in particular sets the tone for how state government business is to be conducted under his or her administration, I would advocate for a more expansive view of the term to discourage not just bribery and extortion, but also influence peddling, which in my experience appears to be a much more pervasive and intractable problem than the first two.

    While Gov. McDonnell and his wife Maureen might not have been a party to a quid pro quo relationship per se with Star Scientific CEO Jonnie Williams, by which they received a payment, favor or benefit from Williams in direct exchange for an "official act" as defined by SCOTUS, they were most certainly exploiting their unique position as Virginia's "First Couple" to engage in influence peddling.

    Per the Hobbs Act of 1946, it was heretofore enough for a public official who accepted a payment or gift from an individual or corporation to know that said individual / corporation did so with the intent to curry otherwise undue favor, for that public official to be guilty of corruption. And that was certainly the case here with the Gov. McDonnell's relationship with Williams.

    That the Virginia governor and his spouse can accept $175,000 in "gifts" and "personal loans" from a wealthy constituent who's obviously intent on doing business with the Commonwealth, while the governor's office opens doors for that constituent through the arrangement of meetings and introductions with key Commonwealth officials, represents the very antithesis of fair, ethical and honest government.

    Aloha.