ROBERT F. MCDONNELL v. UNITED STATES
Supreme Court of the United States, Roberts, June 27, 2016,
Bribery – 18 USC 201 – Setting up a meeting, calling another public official, or hosting an event do not, standing alone, constitute an “official act” sufficient to sustain a bribery charge

There is no doubt that this case is distasteful; it may be worse than that. But our concern is not with tawdry tales of Ferraris, Rolexes, and ball gowns. It is instead with the broader legal implications of the Government’s boundless interpretation of the federal bribery statute.

Need to prove:
1) That there is a specific question, matter, cause, suit, proceeding, or controversy (more specific than a broad policy objective)
2) There must be an “official act” or an agreement to undertake an official act

Official Act – the term “official act” means any decision or action on any question, matter, cause, suit, proceeding or controversy, which may at any time be pending, or which may by law be brought before any public official, in such official’s official capacity, or in such official’s place of trust or profit.

Official Act – “question” or “matter” must be similar in nature to a “cause, suit, proceeding or controversy.”

Official Act – To be an “act” under 18 USC 201, “the public official must make a decision or take an action on that question or matter, or agree to do so.” Simply expressing support for the research study at a meeting, event, or call -or sending a subordinate to such a meeting, event, or call – similarly does not qualify as a decision or action on the study, as long as the public official does not intend to exert pressure on another official or provide advice, knowing or intending such advice to form the basis for an “official act.”