## Facts

- Cyrus T. Anderson, a registered congressional lobbyist for Spiegel, Inc., sought to influence federal postal-rate legislation affecting Spiegel’s mailing costs.
- The government alleged Anderson acted as a conduit for Spiegel by delivering cash payments to Senator Daniel B. Brewster to influence Brewster’s official actions on pending postal-rate bills.
- Evidence included meetings where Anderson communicated Spiegel’s opposition to rate increases and allegedly provided cash in envelopes; additional alleged payments were routed in part through a nominal or fictitious political committee associated with Brewster.
- The prosecution relied heavily on testimony from John Francis Sullivan (a former aide to Brewster) and Betsey Shipley Norton (a close friend of Anderson).
- Anderson was indicted on three counts of bribing a United States Senator in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 201(b), which prohibits corruptly giving anything of value to a public official with intent to influence an official act.
- In a joint trial with other defendants, the jury convicted Anderson on all three bribery counts; Brewster was acquitted of bribery but convicted of unlawful gratuities, and Spiegel was convicted.

## Issues

1. Whether Anderson was denied a fair trial due to alleged surprise and perjury connected to the testimony of government witness Betsey Shipley Norton.
2. Whether the district court erred by refusing Anderson’s requested jury instructions on “corrupt intent” and on the legality of campaign contributions and lobbying aimed at influencing legislative action.
3. Whether Anderson’s convictions required reversal because of allegedly inconsistent verdicts, including Brewster’s acquittal on bribery.

## Decision

- The D.C. Circuit affirmed Anderson’s convictions on all counts.
- The court held the record did not establish perjury or a due process violation based on Norton’s testimony, and there was no showing the prosecution knowingly presented false evidence.
- The court held the jury instructions, taken as a whole, adequately explained the corrupt-intent element of § 201(b) and properly distinguished lawful campaign contributions from bribery.
- The court held any inconsistency between Anderson’s convictions and Brewster’s acquittal on bribery did not, by itself, justify reversal.

## Legal Principles

- A claim of conviction based on perjured testimony requires more than conflicting accounts; absent proof the government knowingly used false testimony or failed to correct known falsehoods, discrepancies go to credibility for the jury.
- Under 18 U.S.C. § 201(b), bribery requires a corrupt payment made with intent to influence an “official act”; lawful political activity or campaign giving is not criminal unless tied to a corrupt quid pro quo.
- Lobbyist registration does not insulate payments to officials from § 201(b); otherwise lawful advocacy becomes criminal when accompanied by corrupt intent to influence official action through something of value.
- Inconsistent verdicts among counts or codefendants do not automatically invalidate a conviction when the evidence supports the guilty verdict and the legal elements differ between defendants.

## Conclusion

The court upheld Anderson’s federal bribery convictions, concluding that alleged testimonial inconsistencies did not show perjury or prosecutorial misconduct, the jury was properly instructed on corrupt intent and lawful political contributions, and the verdicts’ asserted inconsistency with a codefendant’s acquittal did not warrant reversal.


United States v. Anderson, 509 F.2d 312 (D.C. Cir. 1974)