Posted on 05/25/2006 6:50:36 PM PDT by Perdogg
408 U.S. 501
United States v. Brewster APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No. 70-45 Argued: October 18, 1971 --- Decided: June 29, 1972
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appellee, a former United States Senator, was charged with the solicitation and acceptance of bribes in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 201(c)(1) and 201(g). The District Court, on appellee's pretrial motion, dismissed the indictment on the ground that the Speech or Debate Clause of the Constitution shielded him "from any prosecution for alleged bribery to perform a legislative act."
The United States filed a direct appeal to this Court under 18 U.S.C. § 3731 (1964 ed., Supp. V), which appellee contends this Court does not have jurisdiction to entertain because the District Court's action was not "a decision or judgment setting aside, or dismissing" the indictment, but was instead a summary judgment on the merits based on the facts of the case.
Held:
1. This Court has jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3731 (1964 ed., Supp. V) to hear the appeal, since the District Court's order was based upon its determination of the constitutional invalidity of 18 U.S.C. §§ 201(c)(1) and 201(g)on the facts as alleged in the indictment. Pp. 50507.
2. The prosecution of appellee is not prohibited by the Speech or Debate Clause. Although that provision protects Members of Congress from inquiry into legislative acts or the motivation for performance of such acts, United States v. Johnson, 383 U.S. 169, 185, it does not protect all conduct relating to the legislative process. Since, in this case, prosecution of the bribery charges does not necessitate inquiry into legislative acts or motivation, the District Court erred in holding that the Speech or Debate Clause required dismissal of the indictment. Pp. 507-529.
Reversed and remanded.
BURGER, C.J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which STEWART, MARSHALL, BLACKMUN, POWELL, and REHNQUIST, JJ., joined. BRENNAN, J., filed a dissenting opinion in which DOUGLAS J., joined, post, p. 529. WHITE, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which DOUGLAS and BRENNAN, JJ., joined, post, p. 551. [p502]
Jefferson has no case ping!
Did this case cover a search of his office or was this guy trying to use Speech and Debate as a shield from actually accepting bribes?
"....does not protect all conduct relating to the legislative process. Since, in this case, prosecution of the bribery charges does not necessitate inquiry into legislative acts or motivation, the District Court erred in holding that the Speech or Debate Clause required dismissal of the indictment."
The court in this case is applying the "reasonable person" standard generally found in civil law. It's more the "common sense standard".
They brought in agents not associated with the investigation to screen all material prior to release to the investigation.
I'll predict, here and now, that if the US Supreme Court takes the Jefferson case, it will rule solidly -- in accord with the Brewster case -- that evidence of taking a bribe can be judicially discovered even in the office of a Member of Congress. I also predict, though with less certainty, that the Court will approve of the details of the search warrant and the review of the evidence, to keep legislative matters unrelated to the bribery charges out of the hands of the federal prosecutors.
P.S. My primary is over, but because of certain legal and ethical problems, the incumbent, Charles Taylor may withdraw/be forced out, and I am in the running to be chosen as the replacement nominee for Congress in the 11th District of NC. For more information, see the article below, and my website. I still need your help.
Congressman Billybob
You better hope. Because if the Executive can now intimidate elected Congressmen in the House of Congress so as to force them to vote one way or another, then we live in Zimbabwe.
And if that's not true, then can you truthfully say that the whispers about Hastert were really just ABC, and not the DOJ trying to help their boss coerce him into backing down on an upcoming bill of great contention?
Which court has original jurisdiction?
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=408&invol=501
“The immunities of the Speech or Debate Clause were not written into the Constitution simply for the personal or private benefit of Members of Congress, but to protect the integrity of the legislative process by insuring the independence of individual legislators.”
“In no case has this Court ever treated the Clause as protecting all conduct relating to the legislative process. 9 In every case thus far before this Court, the Speech or Debate Clause has been limited to an act which was [408 U.S. 501, 516] clearly a part of the legislative process - the due functioning of the process. 10 Appellee's contention for a broader interpretation of the privilege draws essentially on the flavor of the rhetoric and the sweep of the language used by courts, not on the precise words used in any prior case, and surely not on the sense of those cases, fairly read.”
“We recognize that the privilege against arrest is not identical with the Speech or Debate privilege, but it is closely related in purpose and origin. It can hardly be thought that the Speech or Debate Clause totally protects what the sentence preceding it has plainly left open to prosecution, i. e., all criminal acts.”
United States V Brewster, Per Curium decision 1971, Supreme Court Justice Burger (CJ)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.