Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Proof of a "quid pro quo," giving something of value in return for a specific action, is central to federal public corruption prosecutions. In recent years, cases have tended to focus on the "quo" part of the exchange — that is, the act a public official takes in return for the "quid." See generally, Elkan Abramowitz and Jonathan S. Sack, "Limiting the Reach of the Supreme Court's 'McDonnell' Decision, NYLJ (Oct. 1, 2019). The Supreme Court's adoption of a narrow definition of "official act," in McDonnell v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2355 (2016), turned out to have a significant impact on public corruption cases, for example, the Second Circuit's partial reversal of convictions of former New York State Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver. See, United States v. Silver, 948 F.3d 538, 545 (2d Cir. 2020).
In contrast, some recent prosecutions have drawn attention to the "quid" part of the equation — that is, the thing of value a public official receives in return for a corrupt official act. These prosecutions, alleging benefit beyond the traditional receipt of money or other gifts, have led to interesting questions regarding whether, and under what circumstances, the enhancement of a public official's political power and patronage amount to an improper "quid."
This article first describes two pending federal prosecutions, which level corruption charges against high-level officials in Ohio and Illinois, and then turns to consider how the theories of prosecution in these cases might be viewed in light of court decisions in other public corruption cases. We conclude with some observations about the outer limits of federal public corruption prosecutions.
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
In a profession where confidentiality is paramount, failing to address AI security concerns could have disastrous consequences. It is vital that law firms and those in related industries ask the right questions about AI security to protect their clients and their reputation.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, some tenants were able to negotiate termination agreements with their landlords. But even though a landlord may agree to terminate a lease to regain control of a defaulting tenant's space without costly and lengthy litigation, typically a defaulting tenant that otherwise has no contractual right to terminate its lease will be in a much weaker bargaining position with respect to the conditions for termination.
The International Trade Commission is empowered to block the importation into the United States of products that infringe U.S. intellectual property rights, In the past, the ITC generally instituted investigations without questioning the importation allegations in the complaint, however in several recent cases, the ITC declined to institute an investigation as to certain proposed respondents due to inadequate pleading of importation.
Practical strategies to explore doing business with friends and social contacts in a way that respects relationships and maximizes opportunities.
As the relationship between in-house and outside counsel continues to evolve, lawyers must continue to foster a client-first mindset, offer business-focused solutions, and embrace technology that helps deliver work faster and more efficiently.