414
Opinion of the Court
official act or any act at all." App. to Pet. for Cert. 84a- 86a, 87a-88a.
The Government contends that the jury's verdict rendered pursuant to these instructions necessarily included a finding that respondent's gratuities were given and received "for or because of" an official act or acts. Upon closer examination, however, this argument is revealed to be nothing more than a restatement of the same flawed premise that permeated the instructions themselves and that we have just rejected: "By returning a guilty verdict, the jury necessarily rejected respondent's theory of defense and found beyond a reasonable doubt that the gifts were motivated by the fact that the Secretary of Agriculture exercised regulatory authority over respondent's business." Brief for United States 44. The Court of Appeals tersely rejected this claim of harmless error, 138 F. 3d, at 968, and we do the same.
* * *
We hold that, in order to establish a violation of 18 U. S. C. § 201(c)(1)(A), the Government must prove a link between a thing of value conferred upon a public official and a specific "official act" for or because of which it was given. We affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals, which remanded the case to the District Court for a new trial on Count One. Our decision today casts doubt upon the lower courts' resolution of respondent's challenge to the sufficiency of the indictment on Count One—an issue on which certiorari was neither sought nor granted. We leave it to the District Court to determine whether that issue should be reopened on remand.
It is so ordered.
Page: Index Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17Last modified: October 4, 2007