EXECUTIONS AND SUPPORT FOR CAPITAL PUNISHMENT DOWN

"Executions, new death sentences and public support for capital punishment in the United States all fell this year to their lowest levels in decades, continuing sharp declines underway since the 1990s. States carried out fewer executions in 2016 than they had in 25 years, and juries imposed fewer death sentences than in any year since 1972, when the Supreme Court struck down all of the death penalty laws then on the books.

This year continued another trend, as new death sentences were more concentrated than ever in a handful of jurisdictions.

The new figures come from a report released on Wednesday by the Death Penalty Information Center, a nonprofit research group that opposes capital punishment."  http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/21/us/death-penalty-capital-punishment.html?_r=0

STATE LAWS ON MINOR IN POSSESSION OF ALCOHOL

How state laws differ; http://blogs.findlaw.com/blotter/2016/12/minor-in-possession-of-alcohol-how-state-laws-differ.html?DCMP=NWL-pro_top

FREEDOM OF SPEECH DOES NOT PROTECT AGAINST CHARGES OF HARRASSMENT, DISORDERLY CONDUCT. ETC.

How far can media trolls go in threatening public officials?  How far do they have to go before they lose First Amendment protection and can be prosecuted?

“[Babak]Taherzadeh sits in the Dallas County jail, where he has been since June, held on a felony stalking charge. He is accused of using social media to harass a judge who oversaw a criminal case against him. 

Before his arrest, he regularly commented online on political issues and public figures. 

Taherzadeh believes he was exercising his rights to free speech and to petition the government when he posted negative comments on social media about a state district judge. 

But authorities see it differently. They say Taherzadeh's tweets threatened physical harm. 

The arrest warrant affidavit says Judge Brandon Birmingham "is in fear for the life of his family and for his own" because of Taherzadeh's messages and social media posts. 

In a time when everyone seems to have an online opinion, when people are emboldened by the anonymity of screen names, the case against Taherzadeh shows the limits of free speech. 

The First Amendment protects freedom of speech, religion, the press, the right to assemble and to petition the government, and it prevents the government from punishing people who exercise those rights. 

And though hate speech is protected, there is a line when a person's safety is threatened, legal experts say. 

"It's always been a huge tension there, the concerns about safety versus having an open dialogue and being able to criticize public officials," said Lata Nott, executive director of the First Amendment Center. 

Court records show the 46-year-old man used at least 10 Twitter accounts to stalk Birmingham and the judge's family. Birmingham, who presides over the 292nd District Court in Dallas County, had overseen a harassment case against Taherzadeh. The judge declined to comment. 

Taherzadeh claims he felt Birmingham had mishandled the case against him and unfairly jailed him. He took to Twitter to express his frustration. 

Records show Taherzadeh tweeted on June 8: "Wanna see me bitch slap a State District Judge? I am not one to trifle with." 

He also tweeted about Birmingham's wife and children. He spoke out against the Dallas Police Association and a Dallas detective. 

Most of his Twitter handles have been deactivated, but at least two remain. 

"There were a lot of ugly things, but there's nothing against the law that says you can't be ugly. You can be an a------, and that's what I tend to be a lot of the time, OK?" he says. "But that's not against the law." 

He shrugs off being labeled as a troll. He doesn't think his words bullied or threatened anyone. And, he says, most of the time he was just playing a character. 

"When I was in his court, I said, 'yes sir' and 'no sir,'" he says. "The way I handled it online, that would not be the way I would handle it with him in person as Babak Taherzadeh." 

Taherzadeh says he regrets the cruder tweets of his that landed him in jail. He says he didn't mean them to be taken seriously. And while he sits in jail, he most misses his family, a word he repeats seven times. 

But his family was afraid of him. 

By September, Taherzadeh was tweeting again: "@radleybalko this guy @JudgeBirmingham is the guy who threatened me with jail for using social media." Birmingham recused himself from Taherzadeh's case in October, and Taherzadeh pleaded guilty to the misdemeanor harassment charge in February. He was sentenced to 100 days in county jail. 

But once out, Taherzadeh started tweeting again. 

He sent a tweet that included the phrase, "pray for the death of @JudgeBirmingham." 

Though he insists he never meant any of his online statements to be considered actual threats, his online statements toed the line of his constitutional rights. 

Legal experts say hate speech is protected. Ugly speech is protected. Profane speech is protected. You can criticize the government and public officials. There is even leeway for obvious hyperbole and joking about violence. 

"Obviously there is a right to criticize the government, even to criticize the government very harshly and criticize a public official harshly," said Dale Carpenter, a professor at the Southern Methodist University Dedman School of Law.t, and threatening the judge's fa...

hBut that right is limited once you issue a "true threat" against any person, even a government official, such as a judge. 

"If you put a person in fear that you are going to do them physical harm, that is not protected speech," Carpenter said. 

With technological advances, more people are aware of what others are saying online. Facebook and Twitter and other social media platforms are the modern gathering places. 

"Now thousands of people can know it and react to it instantaneously," Carpenter said.
And many people believe they are protected from criticism because of the Bill of Rights. 

But Twitter and Facebook can censor your posts and tweets. News organizations can delete offensive comments that other readers have flagged as inappropriate or hateful. 

"Private persons and private organizations are perfectly free to criticize you for your speech," Carpenter said. "When they are critical of you, they are not violating the First Amendment"

 

3 STATES VOTE TO LEGAILIZE ADULT MARIJUANA

Looks like a trend developing.  The federal government needs to decide if it is going to do likewise.  Otherwise all these folks are violating federal law.  Why won't the President or Congress address this?
http://crimelawandjustice.blogspot.com/2016/11/3-states-vote-to-legailze-marijuana.html

MUST PROSECUTION PROVE MOTIVE IN NJ BRIDGES CONSPIRACY CASE?

See http://crimelawandjustice.blogspot.com/2016/11/trial-judge-correct-prosecution-does.html

TULSA POLICE OFFFICER INDICTED FOR MANSLAUGHTER

White female officer indicted for manslaughter in killing of unarmed black male motorist.

Freedom of Speech and Support of Terrorism--where to draw the line?

First Amendment freedom of speech limits the creation and application of substantive criminal law.  See this controversial case of  a Maryland Imam.  

But in the last two years, Imam Bengharsa’s public pronouncements have taken a dark turn. On Facebook, he has openly endorsed the Islamic State, posted gruesome videos showing ISIS fighters beheading and burning alive their enemies and praised terrorist attacks overseas. The “Islamic Jurisprudence Center” website he set up last year has condemned American mosques as un-Islamic and declared that homosexual acts should be punished by death.

Photo

Sebastian Gregerson Credit Midland County Sheriff's Office, via Associated Press

That is not all."  See the link for more details."The case poses in a striking way the dilemma for the F.B.I. in deciding when constitutionally protected speech crosses into inciting violence or conspiring to commit a terrorist act.'

MAN UNLAWFULLY ARRESTED FOR DESECRATING U.S. FLAG

All state and federal criminal laws must be consistent with the U.S. Constitution. An arrest and conviction based on an unconstitutional statute are invalid, unlawful and a violation of the suspect's rights.  See this case from Louisiana.  For more, see this article from Wikipedia.

CHICAGO POLICE OFFICER FACES FEDERAL CHARGES IN SHOOTING

A Chicago police officer is facing federal criminal charges for shooting two black teenagers in 2013, when he fired into a stolen car that was moving away from him in an incident that was recorded on video.

An indictment filed on Thursday and made public on Friday charges Officer Marco Proano with two counts of deprivation of rights under color of law, each one carrying a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison. Both of the teenagers who were shot survived. Video of the encounter, captured by a dashboard camera in the officer’s squad car, became public last year as part of a criminal case against another teenager in the car, after the city had declined to release it.

The Fraternal Order of Police, which has defended Officer Proano’s conduct, declined to comment. In a statement, the Chicago Police Department asserted that it would “have zero tolerance for proven misconduct,” and noted that the officer “was relieved of his police powers last year.”

The Supreme Court has held that the police may not use deadly force to stop a fleeing suspect unless the person poses an imminent threat.

The shooting was one in a string of events that have inflamed relations between the police and the black community in Chicago as police and political leaders have struggled to improve their damaged reputations while fighting a surge in violent crime. The most notorious case was the 2014 death of Laquan McDonald, 17, who was shot 16 times by a Chicago officer, including several rounds fired after he had fallen. He was holding a knife, but was not moving toward the officer, and did not appear to be near enough to pose a threat."

NO PROBABLE CAUSE LEADS TO BAD ARREST

From the DMN:
“Avi Adelman, a photojournalist and prominent Dallas blogger, is suing Dallas Area Rapid Transit and the transit agency police officer who arrested him as he took photos of paramedics responding to a medical emergency in a public plaza.

Adelman spent almost a day in jail in February after DART police Officer Stephanie Branch arrested him for criminal trespass as he photographed paramedics responding to a reported drug overdose in Rosa Parks Plaza downtown. The charges were dropped weeks later.

A subsequent DART police internal affairs investigation concluded that Adelman was within his rights to photograph the incident because he was not interfering, that Branch did not have probable cause to arrest him and that she also entered “false and improper information” in her report of the arrest.

A DART spokesman said the agency had not seen the lawsuit filed Thursday and could not comment. The internal affairs investigation sustained all six complaints against Branch stemming from Adelman’s arrest, but it has not been determined how she’ll be disciplined.”

 

IS THE DEATH PENALTY SLOWLY DYING OUT?

Executions may hit 25-year low.

ASSISTING SUICIDE LEGALIZED

In many states assisting a suicide is a crime.  From the New York Times:
"California is one of five states where terminally ill people may legally receive assistance to end their lives. Oregon became the first to provide the option in 1997."

"The [California] law, which took effect on June 9, allows terminally ill adults to obtain a prescription for life-ending medication if a doctor has determined they have no more than six months to live."

NEGATIVE VIEW ON LEGALIZING MARIJUANA

 See this article.  Have we rushed in too quickly to legalize marijuana?

TX ACCOMPLICE TO FELONY MURDER TRYING TO AVOID EXECUTION

JEFF WOOD CASE FROM TEXAS

According to the Texas Tribune:  https://www.texastribune.org/2016/08/11/texas-plans-execute-jeff-wood-who-never-killed-any/

“Early on Jan. 2, 1996, Jeff Wood sat in a truck outside a Kerrville gas station while his friend Daniel Reneau went inside to steal a safe said to be full from the holiday weekend, according to court documents. When the clerk, Kriss Keeran, didn’t comply or respond to threats, Reneau shot him dead.

Reneau was sentenced to death and executed in 2002. On Aug. 24, Wood’s own execution is scheduled. He was sentenced to death under Texas’ felony murder statute, commonly known as the law of parties, which holds that anyone involved in a crime resulting in death is equally responsible, even if they weren't directly involved in the actual killing.

[It might be more accurate to say that Wood was sentenced to death on the basis that he was an accomplice to a felony murder for which the death penalty is an authorized punishment.  See Texas Penal Code sections 7.01, 7.02, 12.04, 12.31, 19.03  9(a)(2), 29.03). See also

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felony_murder_rule#United_States

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felony_murder_rule_(Texas)

Activists and Wood’s lawyers are scrambling to try to stop his execution.

I’m not aware of another case in which a person has been executed with as minimal participation and culpability as Jeff,” said Jared Tyler, Wood’s lawyer. “It’s a national first in that regard if the state does actually execute him.”

In the current efforts to keep Wood out of the death chamber, however, the law of parties plays only a small role.” [There are other issues they are arguing that they hope will save  him from the death penalty.]

” The Death Penalty Information Center has confirmed 10 cases — five from Texas — in which a person was executed under state felony murder statutes such as Texas’ law of parties. That’s less than 1 percent of all executions since 1976, when the death penalty was reinstated in the United States.

Critics of the law of parties say the state shouldn’t be allowed to execute people who never killed anyone.”

 

EIGHTH AMENDMENT, DEATH PENALTY AND THE TISON BROTHERS

With regard to the constitutionality of the death penalty for an accomplice to a felony murder,

“The Supreme Court of the United States has held that the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution does not prohibit imposing the death penalty for felony murder. The Supreme Court has created a two-part test to determine when the death penalty is an appropriate punishment for felony murder. Under Enmund v. Florida,^[1] the death penalty may not be imposed on someone who did not kill, attempt to kill, or intend that a killing take place. However, under Tison v. Arizona,^[2] the death penalty may be imposed on someone who was a major participant in the underlying felony and acted with reckless indifference to human life.”  [courts have held that the death penalty for Wood does not violate the 8th Amend.]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felony_murder_and_the_death_penalty_in_the_United_States

There is a film about the Tison case, starring Robert Mitchum as the father of the three sons, two of whom survived and who were sentenced to death as accomplices in the father’ murder of innocent hostages.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Killer_in_the_Family

An outstanding book on the prison escape, murder and Tison brothers is The Last Rampage. 

https://www.amazon.com/Last-Rampage-Escape-Gary-Tison/dp/0816519676/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1471108800&sr=1-1&keywords=Tison+brothers

I highly recommend this book if you are interested in this case.

Spoiler, the death sentences of the two surviving Tison brothers  (Ricky and Raymond)were later reduced to life sentences.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tison_v._Arizona

 

S

JEFF WOOD CASE FROM TEXAS

According to the Texas Tribune:  https://www.texastribune.org/2016/08/11/texas-plans-execute-jeff-wood-who-never-killed-any/

“Early on Jan. 2, 1996, Jeff Wood sat in a truck outside a Kerrville gas station while his friend Daniel Reneau went inside to steal a safe said to be full from the holiday weekend, according to court documents. When the clerk, Kriss Keeran, didn’t comply or respond to threats, Reneau shot him dead.

Reneau was sentenced to death and executed in 2002. On Aug. 24, Wood’s own execution is scheduled. He was sentenced to death under Texas’ felony murder statute, commonly known as the law of parties, which holds that anyone involved in a crime resulting in death is equally responsible, even if they weren't directly involved in the actual killing.

[It might be more accurate to say that Wood was sentenced to death on the basis that he was an accomplice to a felony murder for which the death penalty is an authorized punishment.  See Texas Penal Code sections 7.01, 7.02, 12.04, 12.31, 19.03  9(a)(2), 29.03). See also

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felony_murder_rule#United_States

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felony_murder_rule_(Texas)

Activists and Wood’s lawyers are scrambling to try to stop his execution.

I’m not aware of another case in which a person has been executed with as minimal participation and culpability as Jeff,” said Jared Tyler, Wood’s lawyer. “It’s a national first in that regard if the state does actually execute him.”

In the current efforts to keep Wood out of the death chamber, however, the law of parties plays only a small role.” [There are other issues they are arguing that they hope will save  him from the death penalty.]

” The Death Penalty Information Center has confirmed 10 cases — five from Texas — in which a person was executed under state felony murder statutes such as Texas’ law of parties. That’s less than 1 percent of all executions since 1976, when the death penalty was reinstated in the United States.

Critics of the law of parties say the state shouldn’t be allowed to execute people who never killed anyone.”

 

EIGHTH AMENDMENT, DEATH PENALTY AND THE TISON BROTHERS

With regard to the constitutionality of the death penalty for an accomplice to a felony murder,

“The Supreme Court of the United States has held that the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution does not prohibit imposing the death penalty for felony murder. The Supreme Court has created a two-part test to determine when the death penalty is an appropriate punishment for felony murder. Under Enmund v. Florida,^[1] the death penalty may not be imposed on someone who did not kill, attempt to kill, or intend that a killing take place. However, under Tison v. Arizona,^[2] the death penalty may be imposed on someone who was a major participant in the underlying felony and acted with reckless indifference to human life.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felony_murder_and_the_death_penalty_in_the_United_States

There is a film about the Tison case, starring Robert Mitchum as the father of the three sons, two of whom survived and who were sentenced to death as accomplices in the father’ murder of innocent hostages.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Killer_in_the_Family

An outstanding book on the prison escape, murder and Tison brothers is The Last Rampage. 

https://www.amazon.com/Last-Rampage-Escape-Gary-Tison/dp/0816519676/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1471108800&sr=1-1&keywords=Tison+brothers

I highly recommend this book if you are interested in this case.

Spoiler, the death sentences of the two surviving Tison brothers  (Ricky and Raymond)were later reduced to life sentences.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tison_v._Arizona

 



 

 

 

 

 

 

One of the most controversial substantive criminal law issues is gun rights (Second Amendment) vs. the need for more gun control.  See this post at
http://crimelawandjustice.blogspot.com/2016/08/polarization-on-gun-contol-v-gun-rights.html

U.S. SUPREME COURT DECISIONS ON FEDERAL CRIMINAL STATUTES

In its 2015-2016 term, the U.S. Supreme Court decided a number of cases involving federal criminal statutes.  Some of these decisions are complex and only three that are relatively easy to understand are included.  These summaries are from the ACLU with material in [ ] added by blogger.  See also the Caetano case directly below.

 In Ocasio v. United States, 136 S.Ct. 1423 (May 2, 2016)(5-3), the Court upheld a police officer’s conviction for conspiracy to commit extortion in violation of the Hobbs Act, ruling that it was unnecessary to show that every member of the conspiracy was capable of satisfying every element of the underlying crime. [This is also the law of conspiracy in most, if not all states and, although there are some prior cases which affirm this requirement, they are probably not still valid]

 

In Taylor v. United States, 136 S.Ct. 2074 (June 20, 2016)(7-1), the Court ruled that the provisions of the Hobbs Act, which make it a federal crime to engage in a robbery (or attempt a robbery) that affects interstate commerce allow federal prosecution for the robbery (or attempted robbery) of a drug dealer. Writing for the majority, Justice Alito relied on the Court’s earlier holding in Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005), that the federal government may prohibit even intrastate activities involving marijuana because of their impact on the national market. By the same reasoning, he concluded, someone who “target[s] a drug dealer” for robbery “necessarily affects or attempts to affect commerce over which the United States has jurisdiction.” Id. at ____.

[The Court said Congress had power to validly pass this statute under its constitutional power to regulated interstate commerce]

In Voisine v. United States, 136 S.Ct. 2272 (June 26, 2016)(6-2), the Court held that a federal law prohibiting anyone convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence involving the use of force from possessing firearms, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9), applies to those convictions based on the reckless use of force as well as the intentional use of force. Justice Kagan wrote the majority opinion. [The Court interpreted the statute to include misdemeanor convictions that involved reckless uses of force, not just intentional uses of force]

 

If you would like the see the opinions in this case, go to the post below and use the link to the opinion in that post at the Supreme Court website (supremecourt.gov).  Then search for the case by the case name/title or the citation (e.g. 136 S.Ct. 2200)

 

U.S. SUPREME COURT OPNION ON SECOND AMENDMENT

As you probably know, the Second Amendment limits the ability of federal and state goverments to control the right to keep and bear arms.  In it's latest term, which ended in June, 2017, the Supreme Court (hereinafter Court, as opposed to 'court') decided just one 2nd Amend. case.  This short summary is from the ACLU.

SECOND AMENDMENT
  In Caetano v. Massachusetts, 136 S.Ct. 1027 (Mar. 21, 2016)(9-0), the "Court summarily ruled that the Second Amendment prohibits a state from categorically banning stun guns. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court had held that the Second Amendment did not cover stun guns because they were not in use when the Second Amendment was adopted. That view was quickly rejected by the Court as inconsistent with Heller in a brief per curiam opinion. Justice Thomas, joined by Justice Alito, wrote a longer concurring opinion emphasizing that the stun gun in this case had been used by the defendant to defend herself against an abusive ex-boyfriend and was thus preferable to the use of a handgun, which would have been permitted under state law."

The official citation for this case is 136 S.Ct. 1027.  See the opinion (including occurrences at)
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-10078_aplc.pdf


This is a short opinion. This is a per curiam opinion that is a precedent and establishes the law, but is not signed by any particular justice even though it is a unanimous opinion. However, Justices can and do, such as in this case, add concurring opinions which agree with the main opinion, but in which they add their own opinions.  Concurring and dissenting opinions are no the law.


Most U.S. Supreme Court opinions are long and hard to read. The syllabus is very much shorter and much more readable.

HINCKLEY CASE LED TO MAJOR CHANGES IN LAW OF CRIMINAL INSANITY DEFENSE

According to the Wall Street Journal:
"John Hinckley Jr.’s impending release, more than three decades after his attempted assassination of President Ronald Reagan, serves as a reminder of how a single event can change the face of criminal law."

SHOULD PROSTITUTION BE DECRIMINALIZED, OR LEGALIZED AND REGULATED?

Prostituton is legal only in a few counties in Nevada.  It's a crime everywhere else in the U.S.  This article discusses the debate about the proper legal status of prostution (sex work).

USING NO-FLY AND SIMILAR LISTS TO PROHIBIT GUN SALES VIOLATES DUE PROCESS

This outstanding article provides a good critique of the  no-fly list, proposed legislation, and a readable discussion of the requirements of due process of law.

"In the aftermath of horrific terrorist massacres such as the Orlando nightclub shooting, the natural impulse of the American people is to ask what the government can do to prevent such tragedies. Securing public safety is indeed the government’s most important job; keeping guns away from terrorists has obvious value. But this must be done in a way that complies with the Constitution.

This admonition has animated much of the recent debate about the rules governing National Security Agency surveillance of suspected terrorists. Regrettably, it has not been embraced in the gun control debate unfolding in the aftermath of Orlando.
Yet the Constitution’s due-process protections are the vital safeguard of individual liberty and mitigate against arbitrary government action by setting the procedures the government must observe when it seeks to deprive an individual of a given substantive right." . . ."

Even narrower approaches being bandied about raise similar concerns. For example, an amendment by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) would authorize the attorney general to block a firearms sale if the attorney general determined that the buyer was engaged in conduct relating to terrorism. The amendment does provide that a frustrated buyer may bring a lawsuit in federal court to challenge a denial. But its text suggests that this is just window dressing: The attorney general may withhold the evidence underlying the denial from the plaintiff, placing the burden on the plaintiff to prove his innocence by rebutting evidence that he’s never seen.

Those agitating for firearms restrictions now should understand that the precedent they set is a dangerous one that extends far beyond the realm of the Second Amendment. If the government’s say-so is sufficient to block a gun sale — thereby abridging a right enumerated in the Constitution, with little or no ability for redress — what right wouldn’t be at risk of arbitrary deprivation, particularly among the powerless?"

NEW GUN CONTROL LAWS IN CALIFORNIA

California enacts new gun laws.  According to the New York Times:

"

LOS ANGELES — Gov. Jerry Brown on Friday signed legislation that would impose new restrictions on assault weapons and regulate the sale of ammunition in California, cementing the state’s reputation for enacting some of the most stringent gun regulations in the country.

Propelled by the reaction to mass shootings in San Bernardino, in Southern California, and Orlando, Fla., the gun regulations are the latest example of how this state, where the Legislature is under Democratic control, has been able to enact a legislative agenda on issues that have deadlocked Congress.

The legislation in Sacramento was passed with overwhelming Democratic support, and was largely opposed by Republicans who make up a small minority in the Senate and the Assembly.

Even as he signed six measures, Mr. Brown, a moderate Democrat with a history of resistance to some measures of gun control, vetoed five others that he described as overly regulative. Among them was a bill that would have restricted gun purchases to no more than one per person in a 30-day period.

“My goal in signing these bills is to enhance public safety by tightening our existing laws in a responsible and focused manner, while protecting the rights of law-abiding gun owners,” Mr. Brown, who himself owns guns, said in his signing message.

Advertisement

Continue reading the main story

The enactment of the legislation leaves little doubt to the standing of California, which in 1989 became the first state to ban assault weapons, as a leader in gun control at a moment when Congress has rebuffed such efforts and numerous Republican-led states are moving in the other direction. States like Texas, in the name of promoting safety, have in recent years expanded the locations where people can carry concealed weapons, including bars and college campuses.

“This makes California the most anti-gun state in America,” said Amy Hunter, a spokeswoman for the National Rifle Association. In a statement, she called the legislation a “a draconian gun control package that turns California’s law-abiding gun owners into second-class citizens.”

Supreme Court makes it harder to convict for political corruption.

The Supreme Court's interpretation of a federal statute on political corruption will make it  harder for the prosecution to convict.  The ruling may encourage more corruption.  Congress needs to change the statute but must be careful not to facilitate conviction of innocent politicians.
"The Supreme Court’s unanimous decision to vacate former Virginia governor Robert F. McDonnell’s public corruption conviction will significantly limit prosecutors’ ability to bring cases against politicians suspected of malfeasance and could spell trouble for the Justice Department in ongoing, high-profile cases, legal analysts said.
The ruling, which narrows what constitutes criminal corruption, will be an immediate boon for Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), who is awaiting an appeals court ruling in a corruption case, experts said. Lawyers for former New York State Assembly speaker Sheldon Silver (D) said the ruling also will be central to their client’s bid to overturn his conviction.
The facts of each case are different, and the high court’s decision in the McDonnell case provides no guarantees for anyone else. But lawyers said the Supreme Court has forced the Justice Department to reevaluate what it considers criminal when it comes to politicians interacting with those who give them money.

[McDonnell’s case might help others accused of corruption]

“It just raises the standard of prosecution to a very, very high level,” said Jessica Tillipman, an assistant dean at the George Washington University Law School who teaches an anti-corruption seminar. “I think it’s going to make it a lot easier for politicians to accept gifts and hospitality and payments in return for taking action.”

McDonnell, a Republican, and his wife, Maureen, were convicted in September 2014 of providing various sorts of help to Richmond businessman Jonnie R. Williams Sr. in exchange for $177,000 in loans, vacations and luxurious gifts. The former governor was sentenced to two years in prison, his wife to a year and a day.
McDonnell’s challenge to his conviction was largely based on the argument that he neither performed nor promised to perform any so-called “official acts” for Williams, and that jurors were instructed wrongly on what could constitute official acts.
Prosecutors had alleged McDonnell crossed the line by arranging meetings for Williams with state officials, allowing Williams to use the governor’s mansion for a luncheon on the day his product, a dietary supplement called Anatabloc, was being launched and personally touting the supplement to state human resources officials.

That was part of a broader effort, prosecutors alleged, to have Anatabloc studied by state researchers or included in the state’s health plan.
The Supreme Court ruled that jurors were instructed wrongly on the topic. An official act, the justices said, “must involve a formal exercise of governmental power, and must also be something specific.”
“Setting up a meeting, talking to another official, or organizing an event — without more — does not fit that definition of ‘official act,’” Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote in the opinion. The justices remanded the case to a federal appeals court and left open the possibility that McDonnell could be re-tried if prosecutors had evidence to show that the former governor agreed to pressure state researchers to study Anatabloc or force the supplement’s inclusion in the state health plan."
'