Background
Anne Pramaggiore and Michael F. McClain were convicted by a jury of conspiracy, offering things of value to Illinois officials, and falsifying books and records. The conspiracy involved transactions with the Speaker of the Illinois House of Representatives and included objects related to illegal gratuities under Section six hundred sixty-six of Title eighteen of the United States Code. After the Supreme Court decided Snyder v. United States, which limited Section six hundred sixty-six to quid pro quo bribery, the district court vacated the substantive bribery convictions but found the error harmless regarding the conspiracy and Foreign Corrupt Practices Act counts.
The court’s reasoning
The court applied the rule from Yates v. United States and Skilling v. United States, which requires setting aside a conviction when a general verdict may have rested on a legally invalid theory. The court found that the two objects of the conspiracy related to illegal gratuities were invalid under Snyder. Because the jury returned a general verdict and the evidence for the valid objects (falsifying records) was not coextensive with the evidence for the invalid objects (bribery), the court could not determine beyond a reasonable doubt that the jury relied solely on the valid grounds. The same logic applied to the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act convictions, which relied on a Pinkerton instruction that required a valid underlying conspiracy. The court rejected the argument for acquittal based on Thompson v. United States, noting that the jury instructions required a finding that records were false, not merely misleading.
What it means going forward
The government may retry the defendants on the conspiracy and Foreign Corrupt Practices Act charges, but must ensure the jury instructions and verdict forms clearly distinguish between valid and invalid legal theories to avoid a similar reversal.