Chester Jones was the committee chairman of the Perry County Democratic Party an

Question

Chester Jones was the committee chairman of the Perry County Democratic Party and a candidate for the Perry County school board. Jones used money given to the Kentucky Democratic Party to hand out75 $100 checks to Perry County voters in an effort to persuade families to vote for Jones and Neace. In2009, a grand jury in the Eastern District of Kentucky charged Jones with one count of aiding and a betting mail fraud and one count of conspiring to commit mail fraud and vote buying. Jones signed a plea agreement in which he pleaded guilty to one count of aiding and abetting mail fraud. The district court then sentenced Jones to 12 months' imprisonment. After Jones's conviction, a U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Skilling v. United States narrowed the scope of honest services" fraud. Jones then contested that he wanted to vacate his conviction in the aftermath of the Skilling case. Jones argued that he had pleaded guilty to "conduct that has been determined by the Supreme Court not to be a crime." The court affirmed the district court's decision. Do you agree with the court's affirmation? Why or why not? [ United States v. Jones,2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 2269 (6th Cir. Ky. 2011).]

Explanation / Answer

The court affirming the district courts decision in this particular case, is right on the basis of the facts of the case. The question to be considered is the existence of adequate actual basis for the defendants play agreement even when will legal theory has been removed as a basis for the cognizance or the plea. under directions of rule 11 of the Federal rules of criminal procedure district courts are required to determine factual basis for any plea before entering judgement on the Plea of Duty. Rule 11 provides protection to independent Mumbai voluntarily please on the basis of nature of the charge without understanding the scope of the charge with relation to his conduct. In this particular case as Jones add not contesting the validity of SP before the district court the court needs to establish the factual basis for the plea from other sources available with the court including all facts in the play agreement acknowledged by the defendant to be accurate. The statute governing mail fraud clearly prohibits individuals from carrying out any activity by using the mail for fraudulent purposes training any benefits of money or property or representations or promises, including schemes which may deprive other individuals of the intangible rights of honest services. In the judgement for Skilling, this intangible right of honest services was observed to be not precise with extremely broad application of the phrase allowing for ambiguity which may lead to constitutional questions regarding rights of citizens in the context of criminal prosecution. Therefore the court narrate the scope of honest services to cover only schemes which deprive another of honest services through bribery or kickbacks. The overruling of the line of honest services decisions however, left untouched all other similar theories of fraud which exist alongside. Therefore the Skilling decision can be said to have really prohibited prosecution involving breach of fiduciary Duty but not bribes or kickbacks. The money or property email fraud was also left untouched under prosecution for fraud. As the theory of the prosecution covered both types of mail fraud in the above case, relief could not be granted. The actions of the defendant included a scheme intended to defraud and obtain money through false and fraudulent practices which also included depriving the committee of honest services of Jones. The plea agreement did not even mention honest services claim relief on that basis but clearly mention the basis as distribution of the parties money to influence recipe and soft checks and their families to vote for the him, making the please inadmissible as a form of mail fraud which was legally invalid with reference to precedent of Skilling judgement. Search schemes which are meant to deploy essentially involve material representation and planning scornfully influencing another individual actions to benefit personally. Therefore the ruling of the court was absolutely correct and just.

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse C
• Subjects

---

---

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.