The Prosecution of Public Corruption in the United States. Political and Judicial Strategies - and, in the Background, an Expression of the Legality Principle Crisis

Through the exam of the jurisprudence of the U.S.Supreme Court and of the federal criminal courts, the Author identifies two different trends of the political and judicial strategy in the field of repression of public corruption in the U.S. The first trend (as in McCormick v. U.S. and in McDonnell v. U.S.) aims to avoid criminal liability in campaign cases; the second trend (as in Evans v. U.S., in Skilling v. U.S. and in Ocasio v. U.S.), instead, tends to affirm criminal liability in the other cases. This latter trend seems to the Author uncoherent with the legality principle. A broad interpretation of criminal law federal statutes is affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court and by the federal courts and prosecutors using vague federal statutes different from the bribery statutes: the Mail and Wire Fraud (i.e., the honest services fraud); the Hobbs Act (i.e., the extortion under color of official right) and the general conspiracy statute (§ 371 U.S.C.). The aim of the federal criminal justice is to harshly punish and investigate corruption by affirming the federal jurisdiction. However, the consistency of this aim with the principle of legality and the related guarantees is particularly problematic.