Court Opinion

ID: 9427620
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 23:21:24.602116+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:23:08.500566
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Brennan,
dissenting.
While I have no quarrel with the Court’s decision to limit the evidence which the Government may introduce at Helstoski’s trial, I would go much further and order the dismissal of Helstoski’s indictment altogether. “[PJroof of an agreement to be ‘influenced’ in the performance of legislative acts is by definition an inquiry into their motives, whether or *499not the acts themselves or the circumstances surrounding them are questioned at trial.” United States v. Brewster, 408 U. S. 501, 536 (1972) (BrenNAN J., dissenting). I continue to adhere to the view expressed in my dissent in Brewster, and would hold that “a corrupt agreement to perform legislative acts, even if provable without reference to the acts themselves, may not be the subject of a general conspiracy prosecution.” Id., at 539.