Background
Anne Pramaggiore and Michael F. McClain were convicted by a jury of conspiracy, offering things of value under Section six hundred sixty-six of Title eighteen, and falsifying books and records under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. The convictions stemmed from transactions involving the Speaker of the Illinois House of Representatives. After the trial, the Supreme Court decided Snyder v. United States, limiting Section six hundred sixty-six to quid pro quo bribery and invalidating the illegal gratuities theory used in the jury instructions.
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 jury may have relied on an invalid legal theory. Because the jury returned a general verdict on a conspiracy with four objects, and two objects were invalidated by Snyder, the court could not determine beyond a reasonable doubt that the jury relied solely on the remaining valid objects. The court found the error was not harmless because the evidence for the valid and invalid theories was not coextensive. Similarly, the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act convictions were vacated because the Pinkerton instruction allowed liability based on an invalid conspiracy. The court rejected the argument for acquittal, noting sufficient evidence existed for a properly instructed jury to find the records were false.
What it means going forward
The government is entitled to retry the defendants on the conspiracy and Foreign Corrupt Practices Act charges without relying on the invalid legal theories.