Of course, all defendants are entitled to a presumption of innocence unless and until convicted beyond a reasonable doubt.
Tuesday, July 21, 2020
OHIO STATE HOUSE SPEAKER ARRESTED
Of course, all defendants are entitled to a presumption of innocence unless and until convicted beyond a reasonable doubt.
Friday, October 5, 2018
FORMER SOUTH KOREAN PRESIDENT SENTENCED
As a former federal prosecutor in Augusta, Georgia, I prosecuted a number of public corruption cases, including one against the State of Georgia's former Senate majority leader. Of course, public corruption cases are not restricted to the United States.
According to various news sources, former South Korean President Lee Myung-bak, (2008-2013), was sentenced today to serve 15 years in prison on bribery and embezzlement charges.
Thursday, March 15, 2012
Blago Goes To Prison: The Real "Reality Show"
![]() |
| [Photo of Rod Blagojevich from wikipedia] |
Saturday, November 13, 2010
Maryland Executive Jack Johnson Faces Corruption Allegations
Did you hear the news out of Prince George County, Maryland? According to The Washington Post and numerous other news outlets, Prince George County Executive Jack Johnson and his wife were arrested yesterday by F.B.I. agents, who allege that the two had destroyed evidence in connection with an ongoing federal probe of public corruption and kickbacks in this Washington, D.C. suburb. Tuesday, August 10, 2010
Senator Ted Stevens Reportedly Dies in Airplane Crash
Various news reports today indicate that Senator Ted Stevens, the former long-time Senator from Alaska, has died in an Alaskan airplane crash. Whether you liked or disliked his politics, you must admit that Stevens led a remarkable life. In addition to being the longest serving Republican Senator in U.S. history, Stevens had a number of other interesting aspects to his life and career.Saturday, January 23, 2010
Lobbyists and Public Corruption in Georgia

Sunday, September 27, 2009
The Supreme Court and "Honest Services" Mail Fraud

At some point during the next year, the United States Supreme Court is expected, for the first time, to grapple with the issue of what constitutes "honest services" mail fraud. In May, 2009, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in the appeal by a business man of his conviction under the statute. (Black v. United States). His defense attorneys claim the statute is too vague.
In 1988, Congress enacted this statute, (18 U.S.C. 1346), which essentially makes it a federal crime for either a politician or a business executive to use the mails in furtherance of a scheme to "deprive another of their intangible right to [the politician's, or business executive's] honest services.
The "honest services" mail fraud statute is a popular prosecutorial tool used by federal prosecutors everywhere! As a former federal prosecutor, I often utilized this statute to charge corruption cases, too!
Frankly, it is easier to see what this "honest services" statute means when it is applied in the public sector, i.e. to politicians. For example, it is clear to see that a politican has deprived the public of their right to his "honest services" when he uses his public office for private gain and secretly lines his pockets with money. Whether or not he is guilty or innocent, that is the type of case which former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich faces.
But applying the "honest services" statute to the private (business) sector presents some tougher questions about what the mail fraud statute really means. The issue in the pending appeal before the Supreme Court involves trickier questions about whether the statute, (and the meaning of "honest services"), is too vague, including issues about how far does the statute go in criminalizing business deals, and does it criminalize mere ethical violations. It also raises questions about to whom does a business executive owe a duty of "honest services," and is that duty based upon state or federal law? In other words, the Supreme Court must decide, in this new case, whether or not the "honest services" mail fraud statute is too vague, because it fails to give adequate notice to the average person as to what constitutes a crime.
Just as you never know what a jury will do, you also can never fully guess what the Supreme Court may do! But it will be interesting to see what happens! And I suspect former Governor Blagojevich and his defense attorneys will be watching, too!


