[EL] Don Siegelman cert petition

[Edward Still]

I have uploaded a copy of former Gov. Don Siegelman's cert petition
here<http://www.scribd.com/fullscreen/80245673?access_key=key-2l0h111r1t0o2q1532g5>.
The Questions Presented are --

1. Under *McCormick v. United States*, 500 U.S.
257, 273 (1991), a connection between a campaign
contribution and an official action is a crime “only if
the payments are made in return for an explicit
promise or undertaking by the official to perform or
not to perform an official act.”

Does this standard require proof of an “explicit”
*quid pro quo* in the sense of actually being communicated
expressly, or can there be a conviction
based instead only on the inference that there was
an *unstated *and *implied *agreement connecting a
campaign contribution and an official action?

2. Do 18 U.S.C. § 666 and “honest services” law
(under 18 U.S.C. § 1346) cover campaign or referendum
contributions as alleged bribes at all?

3. Does the “intent” clause of 18 U.S.C. § 1512(b)(3)
require proof of the specific intent to interfere with
communications to law enforcement, or is it satisfied
by proof of an intent to engage in a “coverup” more
generically?



Edward Still
Edward Still Law Firm LLC
130 Wildwood Parkway, Suite 108, PMB 304
Birmingham AL 35209
205-320-2882 (voice & fax)
  www.votelaw.com/blog
  www.edwardstill.com
  www.linkedin.com/in/edwardstill <http://www.linkedin.com/in/edwardstill>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20120202/3ba491ae/attachment.html>