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 aide to New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, was convicted of honest-services wire fraud for actions taken while not in public office. The Supreme Court found that the jury instructions based on the Margiotta theory were erroneous due to vagueness. The case was reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
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 Second Circuit's Margiotta decision was an 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 that the jury instructions based on the Margiotta theory were 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 whether the legal standards applied were sufficiently clear and defined to ensure fair legal proceedings.
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' or 'in a manner that does not encourage arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.'
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.
