3 ms·

In this particular case a mayor rigged the competition for a garbage truck contract so that one particular company would win it. That company then overcharged

In this particular case a mayor rigged the competition for a garbage truck contract so that one particular company would win it. That company then overcharged the city and gave a kickback in the form of $13,000 to the mayor. The Supreme Court said this was fine and let the mayor off of the hook. If you can't prosecute with this level of evidence the law is effectively dead.

rayiner 2y ago
That's not what the Supreme Court decided, and its extremely misleading to suggest that. At trial, the government alleged the mayor had "rigged the competition." But the government argued, and the jury was instructed, and the Seventh Circuit agreed, that the government did not need to prove that. Because, under the Seventh Circuit's view of the law, it did not matter whether the subsequent payment actually influenced his official act. So on appeal, the Seventh Circuit upheld the jury verdict on the assumption the government did not need to prove that the competition was actually rigged. So the case that came up to the Supreme Court didn't have the issue of whether he rigged the competition. The jury was told it didn't matter, and we don't know what the jury would have decided had they been told something else. The question before the Supreme Court was only whether 18 USC 666 requires proof that the payment did or could influence the official act. It did not consider the factual scenario under which he rigged the competition because we don't know if the jury would have found he did that. Now the case goes back to the trial court to see if the government wants to retry the case, where they actually have to prove corrupt influence.
- jandrese 2y ago
  > The question before the Supreme Court was only whether 18 USC 666 requires proof that the payment did or could influence the official act. And the Supreme Court's finding is that it did not because the payment happened after the action. Certainly corrupt officials in the future will never figure out a way to exploit this loophole. This isn't the first corruption case before the court where the standard of proof seems to be "they need to write 'This is a bribe' on the notes line of the check for it to count".
  - rayiner 2y ago
    > And the Supreme Court's finding is that it did not because the payment happened after the action. It doesn’t have to do with the timing of the payment. It has to do with whether the defendant had a corrupt motive at the time he took the official act. The government could have prosecuted this case under the same statute by saying: “he knew he was going to get paid later so he steered the contracts to this company.” They had the evidence to pursue that theory of the case. The jury could have inferred under the circumstances that the after the fact payment effected the official act. If they had done that this Supreme Court decision would’ve had no effect on the outcome. The government instead made the choice to prosecute this case by having the jury instructed that it did not matter what the defendant was thinking at the time of the official act. That was the government’s choice. This case just means that when the government brings a case under 18 U.S.C. 666–which is titled “theft or bribery”—they actually have to prove bribery, which requires corrupt motive at the time of the official act. If the government wants to target the appearance of impropriety that can result from payments for official acts that weren’t corrupt at the time, there’s different laws for that (18 U.S.C. 201(c)).

rayiner 2y ago

That's not what the Supreme Court decided, and its extremely misleading to suggest that. At trial, the government alleged the mayor had "rigged the competition." But the government argued, and the jury was instructed, and the Seventh Circuit agreed, that the government did not need to prove that. Because, under the Seventh Circuit's view of the law, it did not matter whether the subsequent payment actually influenced his official act. So on appeal, the Seventh Circuit upheld the jury verdict on the assumption the government did not need to prove that the competition was actually rigged. So the case that came up to the Supreme Court didn't have the issue of whether he rigged the competition. The jury was told it didn't matter, and we don't know what the jury would have decided had they been told something else. The question before the Supreme Court was only whether 18 USC 666 requires proof that the payment did or could influence the official act. It did not consider the factual scenario under which he rigged the competition because we don't know if the jury would have found he did that. Now the case goes back to the trial court to see if the government wants to retry the case, where they actually have to prove corrupt influence.

jandrese 2y ago
> The question before the Supreme Court was only whether 18 USC 666 requires proof that the payment did or could influence the official act. And the Supreme Court's finding is that it did not because the payment happened after the action. Certainly corrupt officials in the future will never figure out a way to exploit this loophole. This isn't the first corruption case before the court where the standard of proof seems to be "they need to write 'This is a bribe' on the notes line of the check for it to count".
- rayiner 2y ago
  > And the Supreme Court's finding is that it did not because the payment happened after the action. It doesn’t have to do with the timing of the payment. It has to do with whether the defendant had a corrupt motive at the time he took the official act. The government could have prosecuted this case under the same statute by saying: “he knew he was going to get paid later so he steered the contracts to this company.” They had the evidence to pursue that theory of the case. The jury could have inferred under the circumstances that the after the fact payment effected the official act. If they had done that this Supreme Court decision would’ve had no effect on the outcome. The government instead made the choice to prosecute this case by having the jury instructed that it did not matter what the defendant was thinking at the time of the official act. That was the government’s choice. This case just means that when the government brings a case under 18 U.S.C. 666–which is titled “theft or bribery”—they actually have to prove bribery, which requires corrupt motive at the time of the official act. If the government wants to target the appearance of impropriety that can result from payments for official acts that weren’t corrupt at the time, there’s different laws for that (18 U.S.C. 201(c)).