Plain-English summary
Court narrows when private citizens can be convicted for denying public honest services
The Court held that the jury instructions in Joseph Percoco’s trial misstated the law by treating a private citizen’s informal political influence as creating a fiduciary-like duty to the public for honest-services fraud. The conviction was reversed and the case sent back for further proceedings consistent with the correct legal standard.
Why this matters
The decision limits the scope of federal honest-services fraud and protects private citizens from being convicted simply because they are influential or close to government officials. It clarifies that informal influence alone does not automatically create a public fiduciary duty punishable as honest-services fraud, reducing uncertainty about when federal corruption law reaches politically connected private actors.
Who may feel it
- Private advisers, lobbyists, and consultants who have informal influence over government
- Prosecutors who bring honest-services fraud cases
- Public officials and government ethics enforcers
- Defendants in corruption and public-integrity prosecutions
Key questions