## Facts

- A federal grand jury indicted William J. Jefferson, a sitting member of Congress, on multiple counts including bribery-related offenses.
- The indictment alleged Jefferson sought and received things of value in exchange for using his congressional position to advance private business ventures involving U.S. and African entities.
- Alleged conduct included using official congressional travel, arranging and holding meetings with U.S. and foreign officials, and sending communications (including on congressional letterhead) to encourage governmental support for specific ventures.
- Jefferson challenged several bribery-related counts, arguing the indictment did not allege an “official act” as required by 18 U.S.C. § 201(b)(2)(A).
- The court previously denied dismissal, then later addressed a government motion to clarify that earlier ruling and a defense motion to reconsider or to exclude evidence of conduct allegedly outside the “official act” definition.

## Issues

1. Whether the indictment’s allegations—such as arranging meetings, using official travel, making introductions, and communicating with U.S. and foreign officials to promote private ventures—can constitute “official acts” under 18 U.S.C. § 201(b)(2)(A).
2. Whether the court should clarify or revise its earlier articulation of the “official act” standard, and whether reconsideration or pretrial exclusion of evidence was warranted.

## Decision

- The court granted the government’s motion for clarification in part.
- The court denied Jefferson’s motion for reconsideration and alternative request to exclude evidence.
- The court reaffirmed that the bribery-related counts were adequately pleaded because the indictment alleged conduct that could qualify as “official acts.”
- The court vacated and superseded portions of its earlier discussion to the extent inconsistent with the clarified standard, without changing the denial of dismissal.

## Legal Principles

- Under 18 U.S.C. § 201, an “official act” requires a “decision or action” on a specific “question, matter, cause, suit, proceeding or controversy” that is pending or may be brought before a public official.
- An “official act” must be within the official’s settled customary duties or practices and must involve or affect governmental decision-making on a concrete matter.
- For legislators, “official act” is not confined to formal legislative acts; it may include other customary congressional activities when performed to influence governmental action on a specific matter.
- Acts that resemble constituent services (e.g., arranging meetings or contacting officials) may qualify if undertaken as part of an effort to influence a governmental decision in return for something of value.
- At the pretrial stage, the question is legal sufficiency: whether the indictment alleges conduct that could constitute “official acts,” not whether the government has proven the element.

## Conclusion

The court clarified the governing definition of “official act” under § 201 while maintaining its prior refusal to dismiss bribery-related counts, holding that the indictment sufficiently tied the alleged congressional activities to efforts to influence specific governmental decisions and that pretrial exclusion of related evidence was unwarranted.


United States v. Jefferson, 634 F. Supp. 2d 595 (E.D. Va. 2009)