Case Study: Mcdonell V. US

1-Governor Robert McDonnell’s conviction for violation of the federal bribery statute was overturned by the Supreme Court on June 27, 2016 (see McDonnell v. U. S. No. 15–474)
In the court case McDonell v US No. 15-474, McDonnell and his family were accepting “gifts” from Jonnie Williams, the founder and CEO of Star Scientific, Inc. (Star). Some of the gifts included vacation, loans, money, and shopping sprees. McDonnell had financial problems of his own and while he was govenor, STAR wanted to have certain waivers from the FDA. Williams thought that providing McDonell with financial support and very generous gifts would help him lean towards providing STAR with independent funding. McDonnell left various traces of the bribery. For starters,

he held the event for STAR at his house. So there was evidence he was involved with Williams and STAR. He accepted the “gifts” from Williams and took care of some of his debt with it. McDonell was arrested because under the bribery statute it is illegal to accept something of value and then take action.
Although there were acts the McDonnell committed that fit the bribery statute, there are some things still missing. The decision in the case was that there were errors found in the case so the charges were vacated. There were a few terms that were not completely proven, so the case had to be vacated. The term official act was defined one way in court and seemed to not have applied to McDonell specifically. The jury's instructions were erroneous which was a problem when it came to ruiling.
The elements of bribery listed under § 201 (Page 174). The specific elements for giving or offering to give a bribe are the following: In order for something to be considered bribery, the person/people being accused of a crime has to be given or offered something of significant value. In this case this was done. McDonell was given bribes such as vacations, money and loans to do something for the STAR company. The element is met in my opinion. The intent the accuser had was corrupt. I believe McDonell did have the intent to be corrupt. He knew what he was doing when he was accepting the bribes. He knew as governor, there were certain things that were morally and legally wrong to do. The ultimate goal of the defendant has to be to influence an official action (Page 174). McDonnell had an agenda when receiving and accepting the bribes. He was going to push for STAR to have what they wanted. The specific elements for receiving or agreeing to receive a bribe are: The person has to have confirmed and agreed to receive something of worth. McDonnell agreed to take what was given to him. He could have rejected the gifts. The defendant is a public official or will be one and act was done with corrupt intent (Page 174). McDonell was a governor which makes him a public official.
I do not agree with the court's ruling.

McDonell met all the elements for the statute of bribery. I personally believe there was a sufficient amount of evidence. The acts that McDonnell did show how he chose to ignore his ethical duties as governor and was concerned about personal matters. When he was taking the money from Williams and was granting funding, he was thinking of what he would get in return. Williams also knew what she was doing by giving McDonell the incentives to get what he wanted. I believe they both should have been convicted. As CEO of an organization, Williams, should represent his company with at the utmost ethical manner, rather than bribing people. McDonell should be representing his constituents better. That is why they voted for him. He should set his personal problems aside while at

work.
(For this question I used: Chapter 8, https://www.oyez.org/cases/2015/15-474 , https://www.issueone.org/everything-need-know-mcdonnell-v-united-states/ )
3- Compare bribery and gratuities. Discuss the elements of each crime.
According to the textbook in Chapter 8, bribery is a crime that is committed directly or indirectly, that provides some type of corrupt offer.

There are many reasons that bribery can be committed. Some are to influence the result of something, influence a person with power or to encourage someone of something (Page 172). Sometimes people are bribed to act a certain way or lean towards a specific point of view. The ultimate goal of a bribe to pay of someone to alter their perception. I personally believe, that bribery happens more often than the average citizen knows. It is harder to prove that someone was given a large amount of money or something of value to influence something. Though there have been several cases. For example, in recent news, with the elections of the newly elected leader for FIFA, an alleged bribery case has

started.
The elements of bribery listed under § 201 (Page 174). The specific elements for giving or offering to give a bribe are the following: In order for something to be considered bribery, the person/people being accused of a crime has to be given or offered something of significant value. The intent the accuser had was corrupt. The ultimate goal of the defendant has to be to influence an official action (Page 174). The specific elements for receiving or agreeing to receive a bribe are: The person has to have confirmed and agreed to receive something of worth. The defendant is a public official or will be one and act was done with corrupt intent (Page 174).
Gratuity is promising something of value to a public official or someone who seeks/accepts something of value because of an action that will occur (Page 173) with the intent of discharging of someone of their public duties. The elements of gratuity are the defendant took or was given something of value, the person who got the object of value was a federal public official, and the intent was to discharge someone from office.
The main difference between gratuity and bribery is the intent the defendant has with providing something of value. Bribery is harder to prove. For bribery, a quid pro quo, is needed (Page 175). The basic meaning is that If I give you this if you will do this. However, gratuity does not require this. Gratuity does not require an intent or any type of influence (175). You are considered a criminal of gratuities if there seems to be negative influence in government action.
When learning about bribery, one of the movies the came to mind was “SuperBad”. There is scene in the film where Seth, gets hit by a car in the parking lot. The person who hits him tries to bribe him because Seth keeps threatening to call the police. The man who hit him says “I’m going to this party right now bro. It’s got booze, it's got girls”. The person believed that bribing the teenager with alcohol and girls would keep him quiet.
Another example of bribery that has to do with the U.S. government is in the movie “The Wolf of Wall Street”. Throughout the whole movie various crimes were being committed. But during a specific scene, Jordan took two FBI agents onto his Yacht to bribe them. He wanted them to stop investigating and him. Jordan indirectly proposed to offer them 500 thousand dollars.
Gratuities would be trickier to prove because there may not be as substantial evidence as bribery. With bribery, like in the movies, the acts are evident and directly to the person. Hypothetically, if an investor was looking at various properties but did not know which to pick they are may be more susceptible to lean towards the people that offer them something indirectly. For example, a property owner may give the investors an all expenses paid vacation, but it may be harder to prove that the intent of that vacation was to have their decision swayed. I think that because gratuities are harder to prove, that they occur more than people may believe.
(For this question I just used Chapter 8 in the textbook, and previous movie knowledge)

6- Racketeer influenced and Corrupt Practices Act (RICO) is often used to prosecute white collar crimes. The law was originally enacted to address organized crime/Mafia activities but has been used in recent years for many other types of cases.
Based on the RICO - Overview of Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act Sheet given in class, the RICO law has evolved overtime. RICO originally targeted mafia crimes but later evolved for business crimes that were fraudulent. RICO is supposed to attack organized crime and limit the amount of mafia activity. These laws make it unlawful for criminals to cross state lines. Illicit acts such as gambling, prostitution and narcotics are covered under this law.
The elements of RICO are conduct, enterprise, through a pattern, and racketeering activity. Conduct is the first element of RICO. The element is not really litigated in court because it is fairly straightforward. Enterprise is a group that is associated without a legal entity. The enterprise has to have structure. Pattern has to have two acts of racketeering. Racketeering is dishonest business. This element is extremely broad. So the courts go on a case by case basis.
A well known RICO case involves the Hells Angels Motorcycle Club. In this case in 1979, The president of the club, Barger, was charged under RICO but was later acquitted. The prosecution was not able to show that his conduct was part of the policy the club had.
A hypothetical example of where RICO laws would be applicable is with drug sales, specifically marijuana. Marijuana is legal in a lot of states in the west coast, whereas in the midwest and east coast it is not. Federal agents may target people who travel across the country frequently, because they may suspect they are transporting drugs. Proceeds of those unlawful narcotics are illegal and are punishable under RICO.
(The information in this article is from RICO - Overview of Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act Sheet given in class)