Defending Elected Officials Against Federal Bribery Charges in NYC

Defending Elected Officials Against Federal Bribery Charges in NYC

Elected officials in New York City sometimes face allegations of bribery and corruption. As a lawyer, defending these clients against federal bribery charges can be challenging but not impossible. This article will discuss some of the key laws and precedents, potential defenses, and the broader implications of these types of cases.

Laws and Precedents

There are a few main federal laws that apply in public corruption cases:

• The federal bribery statute (18 USC §201) makes it illegal to bribe a public official or for a public official to take a bribe.
• The federal program bribery statute (18 USC §666) prohibits bribery involving organizations and programs receiving significant federal funds.
• The federal mail fraud statute (18 USC §1341) and wire fraud statute (18 USC §1343) criminalize using mail or wire communications to execute fraudulent schemes.

There have been many high-profile public corruption cases in New York. For example, former State Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver was convicted in 2015 of federal corruption charges for taking bribes and kickbacks. More recently in 2022, former Lt. Governor Brian Benjamin was indicted on federal bribery charges related to a scheme to funnel illegal campaign contributions. The outcome of his case is still pending.

Potential Defenses

Fighting federal bribery allegations involves carefully examining the specific facts and raising all possible legal defenses. Here are some potential arguments to explore:

• Lack of quid pro quo – For bribery, prosecutors must prove a clear exchange of an official act for something of value. The defense can argue the evidence fails to show any agreed upon quid pro quo.
• Speech or Debate Clause – For legislators, this Constitutional provision offers some protection for legitimate legislative activities. However, the courts interpret it narrowly.
• Advice of counsel – Relying on a lawyer’s advice sometimes helps negate criminal intent required for bribery. But the reliance must be in good faith after full disclosure.
• Selective or vindictive prosecution – These due process claims assert that prosecutors singled out the defendant unfairly. But they rarely succeed.

In addition to legal defenses, it’s critical to proactively investigate the facts and challenge problematic evidence. Aggressive motions practice can also set the tone and put pressure on prosecutors.

Broader Implications

Beyond the individual case, defending public officials against corruption accusations has larger repercussions for local governance and public trust. There are good faith arguments on both sides:

In Favor of Strict Enforcement

• Deters misconduct and self-dealing among public servants
• Upholds ethics, accountability and the rule of law
• Maintains public confidence by prosecuting abuses of power

Against Over-Enforcement

• Overcriminalization threatens legitimate policymaking and consensus building
• Vague standards lead to inconsistent or arbitrary prosecutions
• Politicized investigations erode democratic norms and institutions

Reasonable minds can disagree on where to strike the right balance. As defense counsel however, our duty is to ensure our clients receive rigorous and zealous representation against such serious accusations. Public officials deserve a full-throated defense like any other defendant.

In the end, defending elected officials requires creativity, tenacity and attention to both the specific facts and the broader context. It’s a unique challenge at the intersection of law, politics and public perception.

References

Silver Convicted in Federal Corruption Trial
Lt. Gov. Brian Benjamin Is Indicted and Resigns