By David G. Savage, Los Angeles TimesJournalists await the Court's decisions outside the Supreme Court, Wednesday, June 26, 2024, in Washington.
In ruling for the former mayor, the justices drew a distinction between bribery, which requires proof of an illegal deal, and a gratuity that can be a gift or a reward for a past favor. They said the officials may be charged and prosecuted for bribery, but not for simply taking money for past favors if there was no proof of an illicit deal.
Justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented. “Officials who use their public positions for private gain threaten the integrity of our most important institutions,” Jackson said. The Indiana mayor was charged and convicted of taking the $13,000 payment because of his role in helping his patrons win city contracts.
Two weeks after the contracts were final, the mayor went to see the two brothers and told them of his financial troubles. They agreed to write him a check for $13,000 for undefined consulting services.The former mayor argued that an after-the-fact gift should not be a crime, but he lost before a federal judge and the U.S. appeals court in Chicago. because appeals courts in Boston and New Orleans had limited the law to bribery only and not gratuities that were paid later.
Law Law Latest News, Law Law Headlines
Similar News:You can also read news stories similar to this one that we have collected from other news sources.
Source: adndotcom - 🏆 293. / 63 Read more »
Source: MSNBC - 🏆 469. / 51 Read more »
Source: dcexaminer - 🏆 6. / 94 Read more »
Source: komonews - 🏆 272. / 63 Read more »
Source: NBCNewsHealth - 🏆 707. / 51 Read more »
Source: latimes - 🏆 11. / 82 Read more »