« "Home Alone" by Richard Sale | Main | 1.5 km. to the Castello Road ... »

27 June 2016


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.



I agree. The court was pretty clear: "Secondly, the government must prove that the public official made a decision or took an action “on” that question, matter, cause, suit, proceeding, or controversy, or agreed to do so, Roberts wrote.".

The WAPO however continues with the BS campaign: "made it harder to prosecute public officials for alleged wrongdoing." Prosecution is easy, that's what the feds did, prosecute. Justice however is not what the prosecutors were after in this case.

Bill Herschel

This found I on my tent this morning.
He sheweth him a paper

'Jockey of Norfolk, be not too bold,
For Dickon thy master is bought and sold.'
A thing devised by the enemy.
Go, gentleman, every man unto his charge
Let not our babbling dreams affright our souls:
Conscience is but a word that cowards use,

robt willmann

The supreme court opinion today in McDonnell v. United States is interesting not only for its ruling, but also for the context of the procedure in a criminal case in which it occurred. The opinion is here--


It starts on pdf page 6, after the syllabus (summary by the staff and not part of the opinion). The issue on which the conviction was reversed had to do with the wording in the jury charge, which is the paper given to a jury with the instructions to it that include what the law is that applies to the case, and the questions which the jury will answer by writing its verdict on the particular sheet of paper in the jury charge that applies to the particular question.

Specifically, the defense for McDonnell objected to the definition of "official act" that was given to the jury in the jury charge. Starting in the middle of pdf page 16 to the end of page 17 (pages 11-12 of the opinion), you can see how the issue was created and preserved in the trial court for an appeal.

From the middle of pdf page 26 to the top of page 27 (pp. 21-22), the court provides the new, interpreted, definition of "official act" that will apply to the criminal laws in question.

Because the supreme court determined that the jury instruction was not written properly, and that the error in the wording was not "harmless", McDonnell gets a new trial (you can lose on appeal through the "harmless error rule", even in the face of a gross, obvious error in the trial). However, since there is now a new definition of "official act", and the evidence at trial was not tested against that new definition, the supreme court said that the federal court of appeals is to check and see if the evidence is sufficient to support a finding of guilt under the new definition. If the evidence does not fulfill the definition, then he would be in essence not guilty. If the court of appeals thinks the evidence from the original trial was enough to find him guilty, then he still gets a new trial because the jury that convicted him was wrongly instructed.

I find this part of the supreme court's ruling odd, because if the court of appeals can say that the evidence at the original trial was enough to find him guilty under the new definition, then it will be reported in the press, which can poison and influence potential jurors in the community who might end up on the jury at a new trial. They will have heard that there was enough evidence to convict him the first time around with the new definition. Also, the Justice Department will be encouraged to retry McDonnell because the court of appeals said the evidence used before would be sufficient. And even worse, the trial court judge in a new trial would be stuck because even if he/she thinks that the evidence produced at a new trial is not sufficient under the new definition to prove a basic case, that judge would likely not direct a verdict of acquittal because the court of appeals said the earlier evidence was enough.

Translated into English, the supreme court is allowing the court of appeals to say McDonnell should have been found guilty anyway, which will handcuff the trial court judge with regard to certain rulings in a new trial. This in turn will put the heat on McDonnell to agree to a plea bargain rather than standing up for a new trial with a new jury under the new definition of "official act".

The other side of the coin is that if the court of appeals says that the evidence at the first trial is insufficient under the new definition, then McDonnell is off the hook, and does not have to go through a new trial.

You can now see that McDonnell's fate is actually largely in the hands of a panel of three judges on the federal 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, located in Richmond, Virginia.

The court of appeals decision after the original trial and before the action of the supreme court is here, and its finding that the evidence was sufficient to find McDonnell guilty is on pages 78-89--


As a separate matter, a week ago, on June 20, the U.S. Supreme Court decided a case of equal importance, Utah v. Strieff, concerning the 4th Amendment, about which there has been little publicity, and it was not a good decision. The case is about illegally stopping and detaining a person, asking for an ID, running a warrant check, doing a search after a warrant for a parking ticket was discovered, and prosecuting the person for drug possession--


The dissenting opinion by Judge Sotomayor clearly and candidly describes the practical effect of the ruling, and starts on pdf page 14. Judge Kagan also dissents at pdf page 26.


It was unanimous, which I find particularly heartening.


I don't support any decision that makes legalized bribery even more normal and allowable than it is already. It looks like a pol now has to be successful in changing government policy to be prosecuted, just trying to steer stuff towards contributors isn't enough.


If the are concerned about corruption perhaps they should look at McAuliffe:



Good points on the potential re-trial, if thee is one. As noted, it is up to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.Stay tuned.


Hopefully they take the same approach if the AGs start filing the RICO claims against any one that doesn't tow the government line on global warming.



Off topic, but purportedly the ISIS oil ministry HQ in Iraq has been destroyed by US air strikes.





Meantime, his life is destroyed.


I am wondering if this ruling will make it more difficult to prosecute Hillary Clinton for bribery in her acts as SOS benefiting donors to the Clinton foundation and those who paid honorarium to Bill Clinton. Somehow it always looked like this happened in that crazy Uranium deal that began with Kazakhstan and ended up with Russia buying a company that owns American uranium mines (Bill Clinton received a $700,000 fee for a speech in Moscow and Hillary gave State approval for the deal).

Old Microbiologist

HankP - I agree completely. This now provides a recipe for bribery through which a politician can (and will) be paid up front but if they only hint to a subordinate or other secret mechanism to influence politics then they are free and clear to get whatever and however much they can. It becomes difficult to prove cause and effect. This now makes it open season on bribes.

I have always maintained that we need term limits and limits to incomes for politicians. I have always believed they should be paid by their states, for whom they actually work, and that the offices and space should be rented from the US government. Their salaries and perks should be a state matter entirely. Term limits will make it difficult to get fully integrated into the bribing system within 2 terms. I also believe that lobbying must be made illegal. The same for PACs etc. Campaign finance must be reformed but who will do it? They will never do anything to reduce the greed factor or reduce their incomes or political power.


No harm / no foul is a fine moral code.


Fred as a rule felons over here don't loose their right to vote. In some cases they can depending on the crime they committed. But as far as I know they loose it for a limited time only. I am no expert but I guess the argument is, it would hinder re-socialization. Beyond that there is a difference between active and passive voting right: be elected or vote. Thus, again I am no expert, they may not even loose it while incarcerated. Which I am sure horrifies you. ;)

An obvious crime would be buying votes. Which helps us to circle back to corruption.

I was curious who Tram Nguyen is, mainly since the name is familiar, in this case she spoke as co-executive director of this institution. Voting rights seem to be one of their basic issues.



"which can poison and influence potential jurors in the community who might end up on the jury at a new trial."

That's an interesting argument, robt. Associatively: by now you have specialists for jury selection, who can easily sort out the ones that are influenced by media. One thing I witnessed in this context, you simply check the ways in which different media groups reported on the issue. You then only concentrate on the ones that help you to make your case versus the ones that may be more difficult to deal with based on media influence. To what extend can the prosecution challenge this increasing specialization??? To what degree do they cater to or allow themselves to be led by public emotion?

More generally, there no doubt must be a reason for the "new rule"?

I have to admit that I never took a closer look on comparative cases over here. Sometimes, though, and not because I am a Croesus, the sums involved bore me to tears. Or e.g. a "too good" loan to built a house, as seems to have been one factor in a recent case over here. Besides, if you look at it from an equal rights perspective: How do you deal with the fact that politicians are human beings too, while no doubt as a general rule they may have better chances to get some type of presents that may or may not only be given for a specific favor only. Beyond the more general gift rule ... you give me a birthday present, in the expectation that I will also give you one. Now could there have been favors involved that had nothing to do with the political process? Wouldn't you want to hide such gifts better?

I am highly interested in corruption, a friend works in the field (organized crime, corruption). Among other things he told me about a German writing her thesis in the field of corruption. In this context, she studied cases all over Germany. To a not negligent degree she couldn't get the files, for one or the other reason they were declared inaccessible for study.



McDonnell's conviction was reversed UNANIMOUSLY by SCOTUS because he had violated no laws either federal or state. has Hillary violated no law? pl


Thanks Pat.

I realized it, I also realized it surprised you.

Concerning Hillary, I have never gone beyond the puzzlement why to use a private server for State business to start with.

Recently I stumbled across some videos with short passages featuring the chairman, I understand, of some type of investigative group looking into matters in Libya. I have to admit that I was quite impressed by Trey Gowdy, well prepared and solidly argued.



Furthermore, McDonnell was prosecuted by the DoJ in the sure knowledge that he had violated no law. IMO this was actually prosecutorial abuse of power. "Some group" is a committee of the House of Representatives empaneled for the specific purpose of investigating the Benghazi incident for the purpose of improving diplomatic security overseas. their report was published today. pl



The issue was the coordination with political activists and zero notifications to those agencies that register voters. This is machine politics and not a moral issue of restoration of voting rights. The Governor could have accomplished this working with the legislature.

"An obvious crime would be buying votes."

I believe none of these felons was imprisoned for vote buying. They did lots of other crimes.



"he had violated no laws either federal or state. "



Sorry, Pat, for not looking up the correct term. It felt, I should. I have to admit, after I looked at it, there was only one thing on my mind. Hopefully it did not end yet with some type of case closed decision, but no, I didn't look it up at the time:


Ishmael Zechariah

Col. Lang, SST
Off topic but tangentially related. Apologies.
tayyip reversed his course and has apologized to Russia. He also is trying to make nice with the izzies. The first case is a very public humiliation and is his first step back after a direct hit. The Turkish newspaper "Sozcu" headlines this as (translation): "Tayyip had to lick up what he spat". His supporters in the nedia are downplaying the issue.
Ishmael Zechariah


Fred, I get your point. Ill reflected activism may be just as annoying as activism employed by special interests. From the top of my head.

On a recent thread I over-babbled, thus I won't tell you what modified my possibly ill-reflected left approach to felons. Nutshell: I had to meet this one lady enamored with power and as I suspect pretty resistant to the multitude of psychological tools on offer in such a setting:


Point taken, while avoiding to get too deeply into my usual babbling private-experience pattern and/or experience that changed my semi-ideological outlook, although, as babbler I have to seriously control myself. ;)

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

February 2021

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
Blog powered by Typepad