*** UPDATED x1 *** Today’s must-read
Tuesday, Dec 19, 2023 - Posted by Rich Miller
* As we’ve already discussed, the convicted ComEd Four defendants were able to delay their January sentencing date because of an Indiana corruption case which has made it to the US Supreme Court. Former Speaker Michael Madigan and his co-defendant Mike McClain are expected to ask to have their trials delayed for the same reason…
The developments come in the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision to take up a corruption case out of Northwest Indiana, in which questions revolve around a law at play in the ComEd and Madigan cases.
* The case in question is Snyder v. United States. From the SCOTUS Blog…
Whether section 18 U.S.C. § 666(a)(1)(B) criminalizes gratuities, i.e., payments in recognition of actions a state or local official has already taken or committed to take, without any quid pro quo agreement to take those actions.
* From the New Republic…
The two sides in the case agree on some basic facts. James Snyder, the defendant, was elected to be the mayor of Portage, Indiana, in 2012. Portage is home to just under 38,000 people. While serving as mayor, he oversaw the bidding process for a contract to purchase new waste-management trucks for the town. Those contracts, which were worth more than $1.1 million, went to a local trucking company. In January 2014, one month after the final round of contracts was signed, the company paid Snyder $13,000 for “insurance and technology consulting.” […]
“Consistent with Indiana law, which does not forbid small-town mayors from pursuing other employment, Mayor Snyder began offering consulting services. [defense lawyers wrote]” The truck company in question simply took advantage of them.
The Justice Department saw things differently. The bidding process, from their description, had “significant irregularities.” It was overseen by one of Snyder’s personal friends who had no prior experience in such matters. The local truck company, Great Lakes Peterbilt, was also in financial trouble and needed the contracts to stay afloat. Bidding requirements were drawn up so that only the company could meet them: Only Peterbilt chassis were allowed, the city’s clerk-treasurer was cut out of the process, and alternative candidates were turned down for equipment demonstrations. Snyder communicated extensively with the Buha brothers, who owned the truck company, but not with any other candidates.
After it concluded, Snyder suddenly received a $13,000 check for consulting fees. “Neither [Snyder] nor the Buhas produced any documentation relating to any consulting agreement or services performed by [Snyder] for GLPB, and Snyder did not include the $13,000 payment on a form to disclose compensation he received from parties doing business with the city,” the government told the justices. “And at the time GLPB’s controller issued the check, Robert Buha told the controller that ‘they were paying [Snyder] for his influence.’”
Federal prosecutors charged Snyder with multiple tax and corruption–related charges. Two of the charges came from a provision in federal anti-corruption law known as Section 666. … That provision makes it a crime for state, local, territorial, and tribal leaders to “corruptly” take money “intending to be influenced or rewarded in connection with” government business. A jury found Snyder guilty and sentenced him to almost two years in prison.
Snyder, on appeal, sought to dismiss his conviction by arguing that Section 666 required prosecutors to prove quid pro quo corruption—in other words, that he explicitly took the $13,000 in exchange for official acts. Prosecutors had argued that the statute’s language allowed them to charge Snyder just for accepting the money as a “gratuity” as opposed to a bribe. They noted that Congress had previously amended the statute to add a guilty-mind requirement through the word “corruptly” to avoid including potentially legitimate business and personal transactions.
The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals sided with the prosecutors, joining the Second, Sixth, Eighth, and Eleventh Circuits in allowing gratuities to be prosecuted under Section 666. Not every federal appeals court that has considered the question agrees, however. The First and Fifth Circuits have instead held that gratuities do not fall under Section 666’s purview, instead reading the term “corruptly” to require some sort of outright quid pro quo. The Supreme Court is most likely to intervene in cases where the lower courts are sharply divided on how to interpret a federal law. […]
Snyder’s lawyers emphasized similar themes in the court’s previous anti-anti-corruption rulings. “Criminal laws must give ‘fair notice’ to avoid the risk of ‘arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement,’” they told the justices, quoting from the McDonnell ruling. “Yet, as above, the breadth of conduct potentially meeting the government’s definition of a gratuity is sweeping. As this case illustrates, any time a public servant accepts private employment (think: every ex-state legislator turned lobbyist), federal prosecutors might recast those payments as gratuities for actions taken in office.”
You should really go read the whole thing. The Seventh Circuit is in Chicago, and that’s where the Illinois defendants’ appeals will be filed, so that’s a big reason why this is so important.
*** UPDATE *** As expected…