Enacted in 1988, the 28-word honest services statute has long been heralded by prosecutors as a flexible tool to charge those who abuse their positions to steer favors to friends, relatives or themselves. It essentially requires public and corporate officials to disclose conflicts of interest and act in the best interests of their constituents or employers. Prosecutors used it to convict former lobbyist Jack Abramoff and to charge the ex-governor of Illinois, Rod Blagojevich.
But critics argue the law is so vaguely worded that it fails to delineate between a harmless favor and a crime. As a result, they say prosecutors have the power to criminalize behavior that may not be illegal.
The Supreme Court heard two honest services cases last week. One case was brought by Black, the newspaper executive who prosecutors say conspired with other top officers at his firm, Hollinger International, to pay themselves millions in bogus management fees that should have gone to shareholders. The second case was Bruce Weyhrauch, a former Alaska state lawmaker who failed to disclose he was lobbying for a job with an oil company while pushing for legislation on its behalf. Early next year, the court will hear a third honest service case involving former Enron Chief Executive Jeffrey K. Skilling.
The court has a few options:
The court is expected to rule on the statute by July. The justices could leave the law alone, narrow it to only apply to cases involving explicit bribes or kickbacks or declare the entire law unconstitutional. Most legal experts say it is exceedingly difficult to predict how the court will rule on any issue.
Some prominent names that were prosecuted by Chris Christie in recent years would really be happy if the court declared the statute unconstitutional:
If the court strikes down the statute, it will bolster the appeals of three former New Jersey politicians: James, former state Senate president Wayne Bryant and ex-state Sen. Joseph Coniglio. But all three were also convicted of other charges, so simply overturning the honest services law won't spring them from prison.
But the real impact of a Supreme Court decision overturning the honest services clause could be Joe Ferriero:
Ferriero, on the other hand, was convicted entirely under the honest services statute and could see his whole case eviscerated if the law is struck down. The one-time North Jersey power broker is scheduled to be sentenced Feb. 10 and faces up to 20 years in prison after being convicted in October of conspiring to profit from government grants through a consulting firm he secretly controlled.
This federal case will be one to watch, because depending on the ruling, we could see a significant impact on New Jersey and the political arena.
