## Facts

- Federal authorities investigated allegations that money was paid to obtain introduction of private immigration bills allowing certain aliens to remain in the United States.
- Henry Helstoski, a former Member of the U.S. House of Representatives, voluntarily appeared before federal grand juries on multiple occasions and testified about his practices in introducing private bills.
- Helstoski also voluntarily produced files and copies of private bills he had introduced.
- A grand jury indicted Helstoski under 18 U.S.C. § 201 for accepting money in return for being influenced in the performance of official acts, including conduct related to private immigration bills.
- The district court denied a motion to dismiss the indictment but ruled the government could not introduce evidence of past legislative acts “in any form” at trial.
- The court of appeals affirmed, including on the grounds that legislative acts could not be introduced even to show motive and that Helstoski had not waived Speech or Debate protection by his grand-jury cooperation.

## Issues

1. Whether the Speech or Debate Clause prohibits the government from introducing evidence of a Member’s legislative acts in a prosecution under 18 U.S.C. § 201, including when offered to prove motive or intent.
2. Whether a Member waives Speech or Debate Clause protection by voluntarily testifying and producing documents to a grand jury about legislative activities.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment limiting the government’s trial evidence.
- The Court held that, under the Speech or Debate Clause, the government may not introduce evidence of a Member’s past legislative acts in a § 201 prosecution.
- The evidentiary bar applies even if the government offers legislative-act evidence to prove motive or intent.
- The Court distinguished promises or agreements to perform future legislative acts from completed legislative acts; the former are not themselves legislative acts for Speech or Debate purposes.
- The Court held Helstoski did not waive Speech or Debate Clause protection by testifying before grand juries or producing legislative files.

## Legal Principles

- The Speech or Debate Clause forbids introduction of evidence of a Member’s legislative acts in a criminal prosecution, including when used as circumstantial proof of motive or intent.
- “Legislative acts” include acts generally done in Congress in relation to business before it, such as introducing bills, speeches, votes, and committee work.
- The Clause protects against being questioned about legislative acts through evidentiary use, not merely against formal charges targeting those acts.
- Promises, solicitations, or agreements concerning future legislative acts are not legislative acts and may be admissible if the case can be proved without relying on evidence of completed legislative conduct.
- Voluntary grand-jury testimony and document production do not, without an explicit and effective waiver, forfeit Speech or Debate Clause protection at trial.

## Conclusion

The Court held that a bribery prosecution of a Member or former Member of Congress may proceed only if the government proves its case without introducing evidence of completed legislative acts, and it further held that voluntary grand-jury cooperation does not waive the Speech or Debate Clause’s trial protections.


United States v. Helstoski, 442 U.S. 477 (1979)