Bribery Requires a Quid Pro Quo
Ruel Hamilton is a real-estate developer in Dallas who is involved in local politics. Carolyn Davis was a member of the Dallas City Council, and Hamilton gave money to a non-profit organization that eventually made its way to Davis’s pocket. He also gave money to her preferred city-council candidates and gave her cash to help pay for those candidates’ workers.
Hamilton later sought some low-income-housing credits for one of his real-estate ventures. These credits weren’t offered by the city of Dallas, but by the Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs. The Dallas City Council would eventually vote to “recommend” a slate of projects to the state agency, and Davis came to Hamilton’s aid. Hamilton’s project made the cut. Yet the state agency did not grant any low-income-housing tax credits to any of the projects the City Counsel had recommended.
A few years later, Hamilton sought to get a paid-sick-leave ordinance on the ballot in an upcoming election. He wanted it on the ballot because he though it would increase voter turnout. He first tried collecting signatures, but that didn’t work as planned. The only other way to get it on the ballot was through a vote by the City Council, and the mayor would have to put it on the agenda for that to happen.
Hamilton called Dwaine Caraway, another City Council member, about it. Caraway was in the middle of executing some plea documents for kickbacks he had taken involving another case, and he let the FBI in on Hamilton’s call. Caraway returned Hamilton’s call (recorded by the FBI), and suggested they meet in person. At the meeting, Caraway implied he needed some cash. He said he needed $6,200 to help with expenses with his mother, and Hamilton wrote out a check for $7,000.
A grand jury shortly thereafter indicted Hamilton on two counts of federal-programs bribery relating to his dealings with Caraway and Davis. The Government secured a superceding indictment adding a conspiracy count and a violation of the Travel Act to the two other charges.
The case proceeded to trial. Hamilton objected to the court’s jury instructions, arguing that bribery required a quid pro quo and there was no evidence of that in the case. He was convicted of the two bribery counts, and the conspiracy count. He was acquitted of the Travel Act violation.
The issue on appeal was whether 18 U.S.C. 666, the bribery counts, criminalized mere gratuities and did not require a quid pro quo. The Fifth Circuit reviewed the statute, and observed that it required something of value be corruptly given to a public official with intent to influence an official act. It decided that this language does, in fact, require a quid pro quo—mere gratuities do not suffice. The court vacated Hamilton’s convictions and remanded the case for further proceedings.