General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThe Bob McDonnell effect: The bar is getting higher to prosecute public corruption cases
A federal appeals courts decision to overturn the convictions of former New York State Assembly speaker Sheldon Silver shows how public corruption cases have become much more difficult to substantiate in the wake of a Supreme Court decision narrowing what qualifies as corruption, legal analysts said.
In a 54-page opinion released Thursday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit wrote that although prosecutors had presented enough evidence to justify Silvers convictions, jurors had been wrongly instructed on the action Silver would have to take to make his conduct count as criminal public corruption.
The appeals court cited the Supreme Courts decision in the case of former Virginia governor Robert F. McDonnell (R), who also had his convictions vacated in such a way that lawyers have long warned could have wide implications for others suspected of public corruption.
...To substantiate corruption charges, prosecutors must prove the person suspected of wrongdoing performed an official act in exchange for some benefit. In the McDonnell case, the Supreme Court said that official act must involve a formal exercise of governmental power, and must also be something specific effectively raising the bar on what constitutes corruption.
...Former U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara, who was in charge when Silver was convicted and sentenced, wrote on Twitter that the evidence was strong, and the Supreme Court had changed the law.
...Kelly Kramer, a white-collar criminal defense attorney at the Mayer Brown law firm, said that Silvers conviction had long been considered one of the most vulnerable after the Supreme Courts decision on McDonnell. He said while it was unlikely many other convictions would be thrown out in a similar way, prosecutors would likely now bring fewer public corruption cases, knowing the high bar they have to meet.
What I think it means is theres a lot of cases where theres kind of inappropriate or unappealing behavior by politicians, and that kind of stuff isnt going to get prosecuted unless the government can really point to a specific vote or funding grant or official action, Kramer said.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/the-bob-mcdonnell-effect-the-bar-is-getting-higher-to-prosecute-public-corruption-cases/2017/07/13/5ac5745c-67e6-11e7-9928-22d00a47778f_story.html?utm_term=.e5bc4956b1f2
The world has been made even safer for money to work its magic in the public space. YAY!
no_hypocrisy
(46,130 posts)(Prosecutor and persecutor of Gov. Don Siegelman)
BeyondGeography
(39,375 posts)...using Mr. Silvers case as a guide, it may be possible to map the boundaries of how courts may define corruption. It looks like a politician will now have to take a very formal action such as casting a favorable vote for a donor or awarding a government contract to a friend for it to be considered illegal, he said. The problem is that a lot of political power is wielded less formally than that.