Or, it could be that the jury understood the current state of the law, pending further review.
[special prosecutor Smaltz] also got Sun Diamond Growers, a California cooperative for growers of nuts, raisins and other dried fruits to pay a $1.5 million fine for illegally condoning gifts to Espy by its lobbyist.
But a federal appeals court in Washington overturned the conviction of Sun Diamond and the case is on appeal to the U.S.Supreme Court, one of the remaining items of business for Smaltz's office. The case involves the meaning of the unlawful gratuity statute, which makes it a crime to give, offer or promise "anything of value" to a public official "because of any official act performed or to be performed."
Smaltz had argued that the law was violated anytime a gift was motivated by the recipient's official position.
But in overturning the conviction last March, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit said the gift had to be motivated not only by the recipient's position, but by some official act, either a reward for a past act, or an inducement for a future one. . . .
Ted Wells, one of Espy's lawyers, sought to demolish Smaltz's case during closing argument to the jury that the prosecution presented no witnesses who testified his client ever made a decision based on anything he ever received. He said that many of the gifts Espy received were the result of longstanding friendships with people who were lobbyists and that the law allowed federal officials to accept items in those circumstances. (http://www.nytimes.com/library/politics/120398espy-acquittal.html)
Sounds like Wells had a pretty good argument, it doesn't appear that "jury nullification" or "a DC jury" is the most parsimonious explanation to me. Legally speaking, anyway.
Cheers, Dan.
|
