Next week, a federal court will hear the appeal of former Governor Bob McDonnell’s conviction on federal corruption charges. Among the many amicus briefs submitted to the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is one by six former Virginia attorneys general. The four Democrats and two Republicans argue that the lower court’s expansive interpretation of law on which his conviction is based is erroneous.
The former chief legal officers say this broad interpretation is completely alien to legal advice they would have given to governors. They say the jury instructions’ definition of “official acts” went far beyond court precedents. Attorney Bill Hurd represents them, and says McDonnell never exercised “official” government powers, such as awarding a state contract or signing a law.
“And if federal law was violated here, then federal law has been substantially re-written to make, essentially, any favorable action by a public official toward a supporter, toward a campaign contributor, a possible ticket to jail.”
Hurd says that violates due process and the rule of lenity by making one guess as to where the lines between lawful and unlawful acts might be drawn. McDonnell spoke about a product, arranged meetings, and attended events, which Hurd says involved merely access and free speech.
“If somehow, by some interpretation of the Constitution, it is permissible to prohibit those kinds of statements, then you have to at least give clear notice in the law that that’s what the law is doing. And, again, there’s no clear notice in these federal statutes.”
He says upholding that would wreak havoc by casting a shadow of federal prosecution across normal democratic participation.
