The Burger Court OpinionWriting Database
United States v. Gillock445 U.S. 360 (1980)
Paul J. Wahlbeck, George Washington UniversityJames F. Spriggs, II, Washington University in St. LouisForrest Maltzman, George Washington University
4e<To: Mr. Justice Brennan
Mr. Justice StewartMr. Justice WhiteMr. Justice MarshallMr. Justice Blackmunmr. Justice Powell °Mr. Justice RehnquistMr„ . Justice Stevens,
from: The Chief Justice AMAR 8 198*:;
Circulated: =
Recirculated:
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
United States, Petitioner, On Writ of Certiorari to the Unitedv. States Court of Appeals for the
Edgar H. Gillock. Sixth Circuit.
[February —, 1980]0,1
1-4■-t
1-4
1-4cr3I-10
fts
cri
1 Compare United States v. DiCarlo, 565 F. 2d 802 (CAI 1977), cert.denied, 435 U. S. 924 (1978), and United States v. Craig, 537 F. 2d 957(CA7) (en bane), cert. denied, 429 U. S. 999 (1976), with In re GrandJury Proceedings, 563 F. 2d 577 (CA3 1977).
2 The count based on 18 U. S. C. § 1952 was subsequently dismissed bythe District Court,
1st DRAFT
No. 78-1455
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE BURGER delivered the opinion of theCourt.
We granted certiorari to resolve a conflict in the Circuitsover whether the federal courts in a federal criminal prosecu-tion should recognize a legislative privilege barring the intro-duction of evidence of the legislative acts of a state legislatorcharged with taking bribes or otherwise obtaining moneyunlawfully through exploitation of his official position.' 441U. S. 942 (1979).
Respondent Edgar H. Gillock , was indicted on August 12,1976, in the Western District of Tennessee on five counts ofobtaining money under color of official right in violation of18 U. S. C. § 1951, one count of using an interstate facility todistribute a bribe in violation of 18 U. S. C. § 1952, 2 and onecount of participating in an enterprise through a pattern ofracketeering activity in violation of 18 U. S. C. § 1962. Theindictment charged Gillock. then a Tennessee state senatorand practicing attorney, with accepting money as a fee for
STYLISTIC CHANGES AS NT A RICED: 5 -, -1
4.0."To: Mr. Justice Brennan
Mr. Justice StewartMr. Justice WhiteMr. Justice MarshallMr. Justice BlackmunMr. Justice PowellMr. Justice RehnquistMr. Justice Stevens
From: The Chief Justice
Circulated:
- -1 culateriMAR 14 1980
2nd DRAFT
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
No. 78-1455
United States, Petitioner, On Writ of Certiorari to the Unitedv. States Court of Appeals for the
Edgar H. Gillock. Sixth Circuit.
[February —, 1980]
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE BURGER delivered the opinion of theCourt.
We granted certiorari to resolve a conflict in the Circuitsover whether the federal courts in a federal criminal prosecu-tion should recognize a legislative privilege barring the intro-duction of evidence of the legislative acts of a state legislatorcharged with taking bribes or otherwise obtaining moneyunlawfully through exploitation of his official position.' 441U. S. 942 (1979).
Respondent Edgar H. Gillock was indicted on August 12,1976, in the Western District of Tennessee on five counts ofobtaining money under color of official right in violation of18 U. S. C. § 1951, one count of using an interstate facility todistribute a bribe in violation of 18 U. S. C. § 1952. = and onecount of participating in an enterprise through a pattern ofracketeering activity in violation of 18 U. S. C. § 1962. Theindictment charged Gillock, then a Tennessee state senatorand practicing attorney, with accepting money as a fee for
1 Compare United States v. DiCarlo, 565 F. 2d 802 (CAI 1977). cert.denied, 435 U. S. 924 (1978), and United States v. Craig, 537 F. 2d 957(CA7) (en bane), cert. denied, 429 U. S. 999 (1976), with In re GrandJury Proceedings, 563 F. 2d 577 (CA3 1977).
2 The count based on 18 U. S. C. § 1952 was subsequently dismissed bythe District Court..
Cronul M tiltbtitrb S+taltsPuffiringtort, 'A). 04% 20,5)0
CHAN BERG OF
THE CHIEF JUSTICE
March 25, 1980
MEMORANDUM TO THE CONFERENCE
RE: Cases held for No. 78-1455 - United States v. Gillock
One case has been held for Gillock: No. 78-1347 - Wall & McAvoy v. United States. DENY
Petitioners, Illinois state representatives, agreed for a"fee" to introduce legislation in the Illinois General Assemblyto authorize the use of private employment agencies to placereturning Vietnam veterans. The prosecution introducedevidence that petitioners had introduced such a bill in thestate legislature; petitioners were convicted under the HobbsAct. The CA7 rejected petitioners' contention that theintroduction of evidence of their legislative acts wasimproper, relying on its en banc opinion in United States v.Craig, 537 F.2d 957 (1976).
The issue presented appears to be precisely that decided inGillock. The two other issues presented, whether there was asufficient nexus to interstate commerce to support theconviction and whether the Hobbs Act applies to cases of simplebribery, do not merit review.
I WILL VOTE TO DENY.
Sf qrr tnu Qjvtai of tPAtitth $tattoWao ingtrat, Q. 2r1A4g
CPIAMISIERS Or
USTICE Wm. J. BRENNAN, JR.March 7, 1980
RE: No. 78-1455 United States v. Gillock
Dear Chief:
Please join me.
Sincerely,
The Chief Justice
cc: The Conference
upl rine quart of tiTtgnitztr AbdtoPa.oiringtott, 713. al. 2L14g
CHAMBERS OF
JUSTICE POTTER STEWART
March 10, 1980
Re: 78-1455 - United States v. Gillock
Dear Chief:
I am glad to join your opinion for theCourt.
Sincerely yours,
The Chief Justice
Copies to the Conference
Pvl
0=
1-3
ro
c-)7:1
ro1-4
=
0
ro
1-4
CHAMBERS OF
JUSTICE BYRON R. WHITE March 10, 1980
;-51tprrint of Hit Thrittb- .tatto
Paskirustan, P. (q. 2rrJ4g
Re: 78-1455 - United States v. Gillock
Dear Chief,
Please join me.
Sincerely yours,
The Chief Justice
Copies to the Conference
cmc
roO
Psi
0
1-3
0r,
1-31-40
cn
0ti
trl
cn
Je
ro
1-4
)-4O
Cd
Oray
1-4
C/3cn
.§ttprente qottrt of HIT rnittb ,:tzt.tro
p. (q. 2ffg4g
CHAMBERS OF
JUSTICE THURGOOD MARSHALL
March 10, 1980
Re: No, 78-1455 - United States v. Gillock
Dear Chief:
Please join me.
Sincerely,
77/14..T,M.
The Chief Justice
cc: The Conference
2,14/Trutt Court of tilt linitttr JkattoliTzuckingtolt, p. cc. tog4g
CHAMBERS OF
JUSTICE HARRY A. BLACKMUN March 10, 1980
Re: No. 78-1455 - United States v. Gillock
Dear Chief:
Please join me.
Sincerely,
Odt
The Chief Justice
cc: The Conference
.2113-r-gint (grad of Ott linita 'talusVastttttjtou, p. 2rig4g
CHAMBERS OF
JUSTICE HARRY A. BLACKMUN March 10, 1980
Re: No. 78-1455 - United States v. Gillock
Dear Chief:
Please join me.
Sincerely,
dt
The Chief Justice
cc: The Conference
[note to the Chief Justice]
I have one personal suggestion. Would it not be advis-able to recite that the Sixth Circuit panel was divided inits vote. I always like to give the dissenting judge below,when he has done a good job standing alone, a little boost.This could be worked in easily on page 5 of your opinion.
January 23, 1980
78-1455 U.S. v. Gillock
Dear Bill:
This will confirm my understanding that you will dowhatever is necessary to register our dissent in the abovecase.
Unless the Court opinion contains doctrine that wethink must be rebutted, I would be quite happy - as yousuggest - to pay Chief Judge Edwards the accolade of adoptinghis dissent.
Sincerely,
Mr. Justice Rehnquist
lfp/ss
2•Itprtint t aunt of t PtittiStateg
IgaskirtOtort, P. C 2.ug4g
C NAM SCRS OF
JUSTICE LEWIS F. POWELL, JR.
March 13, 1980
78-1455 United States v: Gillock
Dear Chief:
Please add my name to that of Bill Rehnquist to thesentence saying we should affirm the judgment of the Court ofAppeals.
Sincerely,
The Chief Justice
lfp/ss
cc: The Conference
-5 itprretttt Qiiintrt tr-f gniftt(1atro
pa-54 4144m, arg4g
CHAMBERS OF
JUSTICE WILLIAM H. REHNQUIST
March 13, 1980
Re: No. 78-1455 United States v. Gillock
Dear Chief:
Would you add at the conclusion of your opinion thefollowing:
"For the reasons stated by Chief JudgeEdwards in his opinion in this case forthe Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit,I would affirm the judgment of that court."
Sincerely,
The Chief Justice
Copies to the Conference
1;...1AMMOSISOMMOROMMMNIPSa
.§Itpteutt qourt of tkr raitfir Mates
aokingtart, 19 Q. 2.0g4gCHAMBERS OF
JUSTICE JOHN PAUL STEVENS
March 10, 1980
Re: 78-1455 -'United States v. Gillock
Dear Chief:
Please join me.
Respectfully,
The Chief Justice
Copies to the Conference
Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5Page 6Page 7Page 8Page 9Page 10Page 11Page 12Page 13Page 14
Top Related