United States v. Larry E. Jennings, Sr.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• noting that \failure to instruct the jury on any essential element of an offense constitutes plain error\
• explaining that \the timing of the payment in relation to the official act for which it is made is (in theory) irrelevant\
• finding plain error but affirming the conviction where the jury instruction omitted a quid pro quo element
• explaining that \a court need not resort to Latin to make this point. It simply may explain that the defendant must have intended for the official to engage in some specific act (or omission) or course of action (or inaction) in return for the charged payment.\
• stating, in a federal bribery case, that the quid pro quo requirement is satisfied if “payments [are] made with the intent to retain the official's services on an ‘as needed' basis, so that whenever the opportunity presents itself the official will take specific action on the payor's behalf”
• “Bribery requires the intent to effect an exchange of money (or gifts) for specific official action (or inaction

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).