United States v. Peter A. Murphy

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that where jury returns general verdict on honest services fraud and one of the Government’s theories of fraud are found to be legally invalid, Court of Appeals must reverse conviction and remand for new trial
• stating that, in addition to a violation of a state disclosure statute, there must also be a fiduciary relationship in order to prosecute local public officials for honest services mail fraud
• reserving the question whether “a violation of a [statutorily] created fiduciary duty is required to sustain an honest services fraud conviction”
• applying the rule of lenity in the context of a charge for honest services mail fraud and discussing its concerns about potentially overbroad applications of the statute
• “bribery ... may even be the paradigm case of honest services fraud committed by public officials”
• “[The] rule of lenity concerns are particularly weighty in the context of prosecutions of political officials, since such prosecution may chill constitutionally protected political activity.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).