1. Give a summary of what was going back and forth between the McDonnells and Mr....
Fantastic news! We've Found the answer you've been seeking!
Question:
Transcribed Image Text:
1. Give a summary of what was going back and forth between the McDonnells and Mr. Williams. 2. What was Mr. Williams looking to obtain from Governor and Mrs. McDonnell? 3. Why is the term "official act" important on appeal? JUDICIAL OPINION ROBERTS, Chief Justice (for a unanimous court) The parties agreed that they would define honest services fraud with reference to the federal bribery statute, 18 U.S.C. § 201. That statute makes it a crime for "a public official or person selected to be a public offi- cial, directly or indirectly, corruptly" to demand, seek, receive, accept, or agree "to receive or accept anything of value" in return for being "influenced in the perfor- mance of any official act." § 201(b)(2). An "official act" is defined as "any decision or action on any question, matter, cause, suit, proceeding or controversy, which may at any time be pending, or which may by law be brought before any public official, in such official's offi- cial capacity, or in such official's place of trust or profit." [T]he Government was required to prove that Gover- nor McDonnell committed or agreed to commit an "offi- cial act" in exchange for the loans and gifts from Williams. The issue in this case is the proper interpretation of the term "official act." The Government concludes that the term "official act" encompasses nearly any activity by a public official. In the Government's view, "official act" specifically includes arranging a meet- ing, contacting another public official, or hosting an event-without more-concerning any subject, includ- ing a broad policy issue such as Virginia economic development. Governor McDonnell, in contrast, contends that statutory context compels a more circumscribed read- ing, limiting "official acts" to those acts that "direct [ ] a particular resolution of a specific governmental deci- sion," or that pressure another official to do so. The issue here is whether arranging a meeting, contacting another official, or hosting an event-with- out more-can be a "question, matter, cause, suit, pro- ceeding or controversy," and if not, whether it can be a decision or action on a "question, matter, cause, suit, proceeding or controversy." Although it may be difficult to define the precise reach of those terms, it seems clear that a typical meeting, telephone call, or event arranged by a public official does not qualify as a "cause, suit, proceeding or controversy." [W]e conclude that a "question" or "matter" must be similar in nature to a "cause, suit, proceeding or controversy." Because a typical meeting, call, or event arranged by a public official is not of the same stripe as a lawsuit before a court, a determination before an agency, or a hearing before a committee, it does not qualify as a "question" or "matter." The question remains whether-as the Govern- ment argues-merely setting up a meeting, hosting an event, or calling another official qualifies as a decision or action on any of those three questions or matters. Although the word "decision," and especially the word "action," could be read expansively to support the Government's view, our opinion in United States v. Sun-Diamond Growers of Cal., 526 U.S. 398, 119 S.Ct. 1402, 143 L.Ed.2d 576 (1999), rejects that interpretation. We recognized that "the Secretary of Agriculture always has before him or in prospect matters that affect farmers, just as the President always has before him or in prospect matters that affect college and professional sports, and the Secretary of Education matters that affect high schools." But we concluded that the existence of such pending matters was not enough to find that any action related to them constituted an "official act." It was possible to avoid the "absurdities" of convicting individ- uals on corruption charges for engaging in such conduct, we explained, "through the definition of that term," ie, by adopting a more limited definition of "official acts." Setting up a meeting, hosting an event, or calling an official (or agreeing to do so) merely to talk about a research study or to gather additional information, however, does not qualify as a decision or action on the pending question of whether to initiate the study. Simply expressing support for the research study at a meeting, event, or call-or sending a subordinate to such a meeting, event, or call-similarly does not qualify as a decision or action on the study, as long as the public official does not intend to exert pressure on another official or provide advice, knowing or intend- ing such advice to form the basis for an "official act." Of course, this is not to say that setting up a meet- ing, hosting an event, or making a phone call is always an innocent act, or is irrelevant, in cases like this one. If an official sets up a meeting, hosts an event, or makes a phone call on a question or matter that is or could be pending before another official, that could serve as evidence of an agreement to take an official act. But conscientious public officials arrange meetings for constituents, contact other officials on their behalf, and include them in events all the time. The basic com- pact underlying representative government assumes that public officials will hear from their constituents and act appropriately on their concerns-whether it is the union official worried about a plant closing or the homeowners who wonder why it took five days to restore power to their neighborhood after a storm. The Government's position could cast a pall of potential prosecution over these relationships if the union had given a campaign contribution in the past or the homeowners invited the official to join them on their annual outing to the ballgame. Officials might wonder whether they could respond to even the most commonplace requests for assistance, and citizens with legitimate concerns might shrink from participating in democratic discourse. This concern is substantial. White House coun- sel who worked in every administration from that of President Reagan to President Obama warn that the Government's "breathtaking expansion of public- corruption law would likely chill federal officials' interactions with the people they serve and thus dam- age their ability effectively to perform their duties." Because the jury was not correctly instructed on the meaning of "official act," it may have convicted Governor McDonnell for conduct that is not unlawful. For that reason, we cannot conclude that the errors in the jury instructions were "harmless beyond a reasonable doubt." We accordingly vacate Governor McDonnell's convictions. 1. Give a summary of what was going back and forth between the McDonnells and Mr. Williams. 2. What was Mr. Williams looking to obtain from Governor and Mrs. McDonnell? 3. Why is the term "official act" important on appeal? JUDICIAL OPINION ROBERTS, Chief Justice (for a unanimous court) The parties agreed that they would define honest services fraud with reference to the federal bribery statute, 18 U.S.C. § 201. That statute makes it a crime for "a public official or person selected to be a public offi- cial, directly or indirectly, corruptly" to demand, seek, receive, accept, or agree "to receive or accept anything of value" in return for being "influenced in the perfor- mance of any official act." § 201(b)(2). An "official act" is defined as "any decision or action on any question, matter, cause, suit, proceeding or controversy, which may at any time be pending, or which may by law be brought before any public official, in such official's offi- cial capacity, or in such official's place of trust or profit." [T]he Government was required to prove that Gover- nor McDonnell committed or agreed to commit an "offi- cial act" in exchange for the loans and gifts from Williams. The issue in this case is the proper interpretation of the term "official act." The Government concludes that the term "official act" encompasses nearly any activity by a public official. In the Government's view, "official act" specifically includes arranging a meet- ing, contacting another public official, or hosting an event-without more-concerning any subject, includ- ing a broad policy issue such as Virginia economic development. Governor McDonnell, in contrast, contends that statutory context compels a more circumscribed read- ing, limiting "official acts" to those acts that "direct [ ] a particular resolution of a specific governmental deci- sion," or that pressure another official to do so. The issue here is whether arranging a meeting, contacting another official, or hosting an event-with- out more-can be a "question, matter, cause, suit, pro- ceeding or controversy," and if not, whether it can be a decision or action on a "question, matter, cause, suit, proceeding or controversy." Although it may be difficult to define the precise reach of those terms, it seems clear that a typical meeting, telephone call, or event arranged by a public official does not qualify as a "cause, suit, proceeding or controversy." [W]e conclude that a "question" or "matter" must be similar in nature to a "cause, suit, proceeding or controversy." Because a typical meeting, call, or event arranged by a public official is not of the same stripe as a lawsuit before a court, a determination before an agency, or a hearing before a committee, it does not qualify as a "question" or "matter." The question remains whether-as the Govern- ment argues-merely setting up a meeting, hosting an event, or calling another official qualifies as a decision or action on any of those three questions or matters. Although the word "decision," and especially the word "action," could be read expansively to support the Government's view, our opinion in United States v. Sun-Diamond Growers of Cal., 526 U.S. 398, 119 S.Ct. 1402, 143 L.Ed.2d 576 (1999), rejects that interpretation. We recognized that "the Secretary of Agriculture always has before him or in prospect matters that affect farmers, just as the President always has before him or in prospect matters that affect college and professional sports, and the Secretary of Education matters that affect high schools." But we concluded that the existence of such pending matters was not enough to find that any action related to them constituted an "official act." It was possible to avoid the "absurdities" of convicting individ- uals on corruption charges for engaging in such conduct, we explained, "through the definition of that term," ie, by adopting a more limited definition of "official acts." Setting up a meeting, hosting an event, or calling an official (or agreeing to do so) merely to talk about a research study or to gather additional information, however, does not qualify as a decision or action on the pending question of whether to initiate the study. Simply expressing support for the research study at a meeting, event, or call-or sending a subordinate to such a meeting, event, or call-similarly does not qualify as a decision or action on the study, as long as the public official does not intend to exert pressure on another official or provide advice, knowing or intend- ing such advice to form the basis for an "official act." Of course, this is not to say that setting up a meet- ing, hosting an event, or making a phone call is always an innocent act, or is irrelevant, in cases like this one. If an official sets up a meeting, hosts an event, or makes a phone call on a question or matter that is or could be pending before another official, that could serve as evidence of an agreement to take an official act. But conscientious public officials arrange meetings for constituents, contact other officials on their behalf, and include them in events all the time. The basic com- pact underlying representative government assumes that public officials will hear from their constituents and act appropriately on their concerns-whether it is the union official worried about a plant closing or the homeowners who wonder why it took five days to restore power to their neighborhood after a storm. The Government's position could cast a pall of potential prosecution over these relationships if the union had given a campaign contribution in the past or the homeowners invited the official to join them on their annual outing to the ballgame. Officials might wonder whether they could respond to even the most commonplace requests for assistance, and citizens with legitimate concerns might shrink from participating in democratic discourse. This concern is substantial. White House coun- sel who worked in every administration from that of President Reagan to President Obama warn that the Government's "breathtaking expansion of public- corruption law would likely chill federal officials' interactions with the people they serve and thus dam- age their ability effectively to perform their duties." Because the jury was not correctly instructed on the meaning of "official act," it may have convicted Governor McDonnell for conduct that is not unlawful. For that reason, we cannot conclude that the errors in the jury instructions were "harmless beyond a reasonable doubt." We accordingly vacate Governor McDonnell's convictions.
Expert Answer:
Answer rating: 100% (QA)
Petitioner former Virginia Governor Robert McDonnell and his wife Maureen McDonnell were indicted by the Federal Government on honest services fraud a... View the full answer
Related Book For
Posted Date:
Students also viewed these physics questions
-
A dog runs back and forth between its two owners, who are walking toward one another (FIGURE 2-31). The dog starts running when the owners are 8.2 m apart. If the dog runs with a speed of 2.7 m/s,...
-
The KDEL receptor must shuttle back and forth between the ER and the Golgi apparatus to accomplish its task of ensuring that soluble ER proteins are retained in the ER lumen. In which compartment...
-
A 1.0-mm-diameter sphere bounces back and forth between two walls at x = 0 mm and x = 100 mm. The collisions are perfectly elastic, and the sphere repeats this motion over and over with no loss of...
-
Find the first derivatives. f(P) = P 3 + 3P 2 - 7P + 2
-
One of the biggest frustrations for the consumer electronics industry is that customers are accustomed to returning goods for any reason (C. Lawton, "The War on Returns," The Wall Street Journal, May...
-
How would the transaction in BE23-12 be recorded if the individual shareholder only owned 40% of the shares of each company? Assume that there is independent evidence to support the value of the...
-
A thin layer of particles rests on the bottom of a horizontal tube as shown in Fig. P7.60. When an incompressible fluid flows through the tube, it is observed that at some critical velocity the...
-
Triad Corporation has established a joint venture with Tobacco Road Construction, Inc., to build a toll road in North Carolina. The initial investment in paving equipment is $80 million. The...
-
Use the Chain Rule to find the indicated partial derivatives. z=3x-5y; x = u46v, y = (2u - v); dz dz au av 20 220 = = 12u3-56 (2u-v)3 -24(v-2u)3-48v2 eBook Submit Answer x
-
Case : Karl and June Monroe
-
Mr. Mahmoud is the owner of EFG company his finance manager Miss. Bushra presented financial statements with big difference of percentage declined in terms of assets, net income and high increased of...
-
At \(24.0^{\circ} \mathrm{C}\), what is the average speed of atoms of helium gas? The mass of each atom is \(6.646 \times 10^{-27} \mathrm{~kg}\).
-
A high-energy proton is ejected from the sun at 0.300c; it is gaining on a proton ejected at 0.250c. According to the slower proton, with what speed is the faster proton gaining on it?
-
Electrons in an x-ray tube are accelerated to 0.65c. The beam then travels 1.0 cm to a target. What is this distance in the frame of the electrons?
-
You leave on a mission to a distant star. Your craft accelerates at 0.95g for 30 days. From your point of view, you spend the next 1000 days moving at this speed. From the point of view of an earth...
-
Two children, one at the front of a parade float and one at the back, are playing catch with a ball. Each sees the other as tossing the ball at 4.0 m/s. The float moves down the road at 2.0 m/s. At...
-
Create the database schemer. Create the tables shown in your ERD from AT1, along with the keys, constraints and datatypes. Make sure that you include a pair of tables with a primary and foreign key...
-
All of the following assets can be depreciated, except: (a) A bulldozer (b) A copper mine (c) A surgical robot (d) A conveyor belt
-
A swimmer does 7.7 105 J of work and gives off 3.9 105 J of heat during a workout. Determine U, W, and Q for the swimmer.
-
A train on one track moves in the same direction as a second train on the adjacent track. The first train, which is ahead of the second train and moves with a speed of 36.8 m/s, blows a horn whose...
-
A uniform electric field with a magnitude of 6860 N/C points in the positive x direction. Find the change in electric potential energy when a +14.5-(C charge is moved 5.75 cm in (a) The positive x...
-
Equity balances for Sen Widyaya appearing in the statement of financial positions of Widyayas Window Washing Services as at 30 June 2024, 2023 and 2022 are set out below. During 20222023, Sen...
-
A friend who has established a new Pilates studio, Core Strength, has asked you to give some advice as to the contents of financial statements. Transactions of Core Strength include: (a) contribution...
-
Month-end statement of financial position amounts for the practice of David Wei, an immigration lawyer, for 3 consecutive years are shown below. The information is complete except for the balance in...
Study smarter with the SolutionInn App