Six House members, different verdicts

Michael “Ozzie” Myers of Pennsylvania was convicted of conspiracy, bribery and interstate travel to carry on bribery. Raymond Lederer, also of Pennsylvania, was convicted of those offenses plus receipt of an unlawful gratuity. Frank Thompson Jr. of New Jersey was convicted of conspiracy, bribery and receipt of an unlawful gratuity, but acquitted of the charged conflict-of-interest offense.[1]

John Murphy of New York was acquitted of bribery. The jury convicted him of conspiracy, conflict of interest and receipt of an unlawful gratuity. On appeal, the conflict-of-interest conviction was reversed for a new trial because of an instructional error; the conspiracy and gratuity convictions were affirmed. Saying that he was convicted of the bribery count is incorrect.[1]

John Jenrette of South Carolina was convicted in a separate prosecution involving a conspiracy and bribery transaction conducted through associate John Stowe. His conviction was affirmed in 1984.[2][3]

Richard Kelly of Florida was convicted of conspiracy, bribery and a Travel Act violation. He was the Republican among the six House members; the other five were Democrats. Kelly’s verdict was reinstated after a district judge dismissed the indictment, and his direct appeal was rejected in 1984.[4][5]

Add Democratic Senator Harrison Williams, whose distinct mining-venture case is covered separately, and the congressional total is seven people. That total describes convictions for ABSCAM-related corruption offenses, not seven identical verdict forms.

The most recognizable ABSCAM image shows Michael Myers with a cash envelope. The Myers appellate opinion describes an August 1979 $50,000 transaction in exchange for promises of immigration assistance. The court also describes the Lederer payment and the arrangements used by Thompson and Murphy to have an intermediary handle the money.[1]

That last distinction matters. Prosecutors did not need a photograph of every defendant personally pocketing the entire amount. Recorded directions, knowledge of the payment and constructive receipt could be part of the case. Conversely, proximity to a bag or briefcase would not alone establish every element of a corruption offense.[1]

Kelly’s recording showed him taking $25,000. He said he was conducting his own investigation of suspicious people. The jury rejected that explanation, and the direct-appeal opinion examined both his conduct and the entrapment instructions rather than accepting the video as a substitute for legal analysis.[2]

Jenrette’s appeal likewise addressed his claims about duress, entrapment, due process and disclosure of evidence. The court affirmed, but the existence of recorded conduct did not remove those issues from review.[3]

A useful way to watch the surviving material is to ask: who offered what, what did the official understand, and what official assistance was promised? The fictional client prevents a real immigration favor from being completed; it does not make an agreement to sell public power fictional too.