Black v. U.S.

The Supreme Court has agreed to review the fraud conviction of former media executive Conrad Black.

In 2007, Black, the former chairman and chief executive of Hollinger International Inc., and three other former key executives were convicted of taking illegal bonuses in connection with the sale of community newspapers. Black was also convicted of obstruction of justice for taking documents in violation of a court order. He was sentenced to six and a half years in prison in central Florida.

The 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the convictions, but other appeals courts are split on the issue.

In asking the court to take the case, Black's attorney contended that the Canadian newspaper executive had been wrongly convicted under a 1988 anti-fraud law that makes it a crime to "deprive another of the intangible right of honest services."

"The jury was permitted to return guilty verdicts on the fraud counts even if it rejected the government's main theory -- that petitioners stole money from Hollinger," Black’s attorney argued.

On May 18, the Supreme Court accepted the case for review. Justices will hear oral arguments during the fall term, which begins Oct. 5.

Question presented: Whether the “honest services” clause of 18 U.S.C. § 1346 applies in cases where the jury did not find - nor did the district court instruct them that they had to find - that the defendants “reasonably contemplated identifiable economic harm,” and if the defendants’ reversal claim is preserved for review after they objected to the government’s request for a special verdict.

The Supreme Court today reversed and remanded the fraud conviction of former media executive Conrad Black.

In 2007, Black, the former chairman and chief executive of Hollinger International Inc., and three other former key executives were convicted of taking illegal bonuses in connection with the sale of community newspapers. Black was also convicted of obstruction of justice for taking documents in violation of a court order. He was sentenced to six and a half years in prison in central Florida.

The 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the convictions, but other appeals courts are split on the issue.

In asking the court to take the case, Black's attorney contended that the Canadian newspaper executive had been wrongly convicted under a 1988 anti-fraud law that makes it a crime to "deprive another of the intangible right of honest services."

"The jury was permitted to return guilty verdicts on the fraud counts even if it rejected the government's main theory -- that petitioners stole money from Hollinger," Black’s attorney argued.

On June 24, 2010, the Supreme Court vacated and remanded the case in a unanimous opinion by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

"The court expresses no opinion on whether the honest-services instructional error was ultimately harmless, but leaves that matter for consideration on remand," Ginsburg wrote.

Justice Antonin Scalia concurred in part and in the judgment, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas. Justice Anthony Kennedy separately concurred in part and in the judgment.

Question presented: Whether the “honest services” clause of 18 U.S.C. § 1346 applies in cases where the jury did not find - nor did the district court instruct them that they had to find - that the defendants “reasonably contemplated identifiable economic harm,” and if the defendants’ reversal claim is preserved for review after they objected to the government’s request for a special verdict.