Percoco v. United States
View Official PDFBelow are plain-language sections to help you understand what the Court decided in Percoco v. United States and why it matters. Quotes are taken from the syllabus (the Court’s short summary at the start of the opinion).
Summary
A short, plain-English overview of Percoco v. United States.
Joseph Percoco, a former New York state official, was convicted of honest-services wire fraud related to his actions during a hiatus from public office. The Supreme Court found that the jury instructions based on the Second Circuit's Margiotta theory were too vague, lacking sufficient clarity. The case was reversed and remanded due to erroneous jury instructions.
Holding
The single most important “bottom line” of what the Court decided in Percoco v. United States.
The Court held that instructing the jury based on the Margiotta theory was error due to its vagueness.
Constitutional Concepts
These are the Constitution-related themes that appear in Percoco v. United States. Click a concept to see other cases that involve the same idea.
-
Why Void for Vagueness is relevant to Percoco v. United States
The Court found the jury instructions based on the Margiotta theory to be too vague, lacking sufficient definiteness for ordinary people to understand what conduct is prohibited.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)Margiotta's standard in the instructions—implying that the public has a right to a private person's honest services whenever that private person's clout exceeds some ill-defined threshold—is too vague.
-
Why Procedural Due Process is relevant to Percoco v. United States
The case involves the procedural fairness of the jury instructions, which were found to be erroneous and not providing fair notice of what constitutes a duty of honest services.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)Without further constraint, the jury instructions did not define 'the intangible right of honest services' 'with sufficient definiteness that ordinary people can understand what conduct is prohibited.'
Key Quotes
Short excerpts from the syllabus in Percoco v. United States that support the summary and concepts above.
Instructing the jury based on the Second Circuit's 1982 decision in Margiotta on the legal standard for finding that a private citizen owes the government a duty of honest services was error.
The jury instructions did not define 'the intangible right of honest services' 'with sufficient definiteness that ordinary people can understand what conduct is prohibited.'
The Government does not defend the jury instructions as an accurate statement of the law.