Supreme Court to hear Virginia governor corruption case

Earlier this month, the Supreme Court decided to hear McDonnell v. United States, a criminal case involving the convicted ex-governor of Virginia, Robert McDonnell. While the jarring details of the case are enough to warrant attention, this case is even more interesting to Court watchers who are intrigued by its interesting procedural background and its implications for other public corruption cases.

In July 2015, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit upheld the trial court’s decision, in which a jury found McDonnell guilty of eleven counts of corruption. The charges stem from McDonnell’s relationship with Virginia businessman Jonnie Williams, who gave $175,000 to McDonnell and his wife through loans, cash, and gifts of luxury goods.

Williams owned a dietary supplement company and wanted the Food and Drug Administration to classify a product it developed as a pharmaceutical. The process of getting a product certified by the FDA requires expensive testing, trials, and studies. In light of this, Williams wanted state universities in Virginia to conduct some of these processes using state funds.

Prosecutors allege that before, during, and after McDonnell’s election, Williams and McDonnell engaged in an illicit quid-pro-quo arrangement. In this arrangement, Williams provided monetary and material support to McDonnell so that the Governor would use his power to influence state universities to run trials and testing for Williams’s product.

In order to substantiate this claim, prosecutors cite a litany of instances in which Williams gave money directly to McDonnell and his wife. From hosting dinners with $5,000 bottles of cognac, to financing a $20,000 shopping spree for the Governor’s wife, to providing the McDonnells over $50,000 in personal loans, Williams seemed eager to shower the couple with his generosity.

As Williams was providing these gifts to Governor McDonnell and his wife, McDonnell forwarded letters to Virginia Secretary of Health and Human Services Bill Hazel which suggested that Virginia state universities should fund studies for Williams’s pharmaceutical products. McDonnell and his wife arranged meetings between Williams and individuals in the state university system who were “important” and could “cause studies to happen” at state medical schools. Ultimately, Mr. Williams’s product was never granted testing support by any Virginia university or medical school.

Still, in light of this evidence, McDonnell was found guilty of violating a federal bribery statute, the Hobbs Act, and was sentenced to 78 months in prison.

In his appeal to the Fourth Circuit, McDonnell and his lawyers argued that multiple aspects of the initial trial were improperly executed. He and his wife were tried together, and McDonnell asserted that this decision precluded him from calling his wife as a witness and introducing testimony that would have undercut the prosecutor’s allegations. The Fourth Circuit rejected this claim and deferred to the principle that “defendants indicted together should be tried together.”

The Fourth Circuit also rejected McDonnell’s claim that jury selection in the case was unfair. McDonnell argued that, before the trial began, the case was widely discussed in the public sphere, and that the jurors’ opinions of the case before it started influenced their eventual decisions. The appeals court reaffirmed that questions of jury selection methodology were largely under the domain of the trial judge, and that jury selection ought not be susceptible to any “hard-and-fast formula.”

McDonnell then filed an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. In August, the Court surprised some when it issued an order that McDonnell be released from prison while his case was considered. This month, the Court ultimately decided to hear the case later this term.

McDonnell’s petition to the Supreme Court tasks the Justices with deciding broad questions about the nature of criminal bribery, along with acceptable jury selection techniques when dealing with high-profile public cases. The ex-Governor’s lawyers argue that the interactions between Williams and McDonnell were “routine political courtesies,” and that McDonnell “never exercised any governmental power on behalf of [Mr. Williams].” The petition contends that this case is the first time a public official has been convicted of corruption despite never agreeing to “put a thumb on the scales of any government decision.” They further argue that the lower court’s understanding of what constitutes prohibited, favorable “official action” by public officials is far too broad.

An opposing brief filed by the U.S. Solicitor General again delineates the instances in which McDonnell and his wife accepted material support from Williams, and asserts that McDonnell criminally used the power of his office to help Williams’ company enjoy favorable treatment from the state of Virginia. The Solicitor General points out that federal law defines an “official act” in a broad enough way to clearly include the actions taken by McDonnell.

To solidify the case that McDonnell and Williams were engaged in a criminal quid-pro-quo arrangement, the brief cites precedent, explaining that, even if no binding decision is made by a public official, the statute covers situations in which a government employee provides advice or recommendations that would be influential to their benefactors. The brief then argues that the jury selection process fell under the “wide discretion” traditionally granted to trial courts, and that the process ensured that jurors who were seated only had “limited exposure” to the case before the trial.

In a post Citizens United era, there has been much hand-wringing over the corrupting influence of money in politics, both in the form of direct contributions to candidates and independent expenditures from outside groups and super PACs. The Court’s decision in this case will have implications about what constitutes such an arrangement and ultimately about the interaction of money and politics more broadly. With speculation that the 2016 presidential election could cost upwards of $5 billion, rulings on the relationships between wealthy citizens and elected officials strike at the very heart of democracy.

Jonathan Stahl is an intern at the National Constitution Center. He is also a senior at the University of Pennsylvania, majoring in politics, philosophy and economics.