observing that the Speech or Debate Clause is not offended where a congressman's committee memberships are used "not to show that he actually performed any legislative acts, but to show that he was thought by those offering him bribes and illegal gratuities to have performed such acts and to have the capacity to perform other similar acts”
How later courts described this case
- observing that the Speech or Debate Clause is not offended where a congressman's committee memberships are used "not to show that he actually performed any legislative acts, but to show that he was thought by those offering him bribes and illegal gratuities to have performed such acts and to have the capacity to perform other similar acts”
- declining to extend legislative immunity for acts which, "although [they comprised] a necessary precondition for the performance of [legislative] acts," could not be said to be "an integral part of Congress's deliberative and communicative processes"
- distinguishing between letter to Secretary of Navy openly lobbying on behalf of specific company and letter to Secretary of Army discussing a “broader policy question” without reference to specific parties
- noting that it is “settled that a ruling on the admissibility of evidence at a criminal trial is not completely separate from the merits of the case”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
SUR PETITION FOR REHEARING
Aug. 9, 1994
The petition for rehearing filed by appellant in the above-entitled case having been submitted to the judges who participated in the decision of this court and to all the other available circuit judges of the circuit in regular active service, and no judge who concurred in the decision having asked for rehearing, and a majority of the circuit judges of the circuit in regular active service not having voted for rehearing by the Court in bane, the petition for rehearing is denied. Judge Becker, Judge Hutchinson, Judge Sei-riea, and Judge Lewis would grant rehearing.