White Collar

Print
Comment
Volume 92.8
From Quid Post Quo to Quid Pro Quo: Toward an Evidentiary Standard for 18 U.S.C. § 666 after Snyder
Luke Henkel
A.B. 2023, Georgetown University; J.D. Candidate 2026, The University of Chicago Law School.

I would like to thank Professor Sharon Fairley and the editors and staff of The University of Chicago Law Review—especially Andy Wang, Jack Brake, Kai Jaeger, Zoë Ewing, and Jackson Cole—for their thoughtful insights and assistance with the piece.

In Snyder v. United States, the Supreme Court held that a federal criminal statute covers only bribes, not gratuities. The key issue in factually similar cases is whether a quid pro quo agreement occurred. The Snyder Court provided no guidance on this issue. This Comment responds by turning to antitrust law. Antitrust faces the same problem as bribery law: determining whether an illegal agreement occurred when both parties benefit from it. Antitrust has developed several “plus factors” to explain what circumstantial evidence suffices to prove an illegal agreement. This Comment uses that antitrust framework to propose ten bribery plus factors.

Antitrust Evidence White Collar
Online
Essay
A Small World After All: Extending the Martindell Standard to Block Grand Jury Access to Sealed Foreign Discovery Materials Held at U.S. Law Firms
J. Sam Bonafede
A.B. 2018, Princeton University; J.D. Candidate 2021, The University of Chicago Law School.

For helpful feedback and discussion, the author thanks Deb Malamud, Matthew Reade, and The University of Chicago Law Review. The author would also like to thank Colby Chanenchuk for her indispensable support.

Picture this: the Department of Justice (DOJ) plans to open a criminal grand jury investigation into the business conduct of a foreign corporation.

Civil Procedure Civil Protective Order Disclosure Grand Jury Martindell White Collar

Volumes