Earlier this month, a three-judge panel in the 6th U.S. Circuit Court rejected former Cincinnati City Council member P.G. Sittenfeld's appeal of his bribery conviction. But they might also have paved the way for Sittenfeld's case to land before the U.S. Supreme Court.
The former mayoral contender's attorneys have indicated they'll file a request for the high court to consider the case. But how likely is the court to take it on?
How did we get here?
A jury convicted Sittenfeld of two counts of bribery in 2022 for accepting $20,000 in campaign donations from undercover FBI agents posing as developers. Taped conversations captured Sittenfeld telling the officers he could "deliver the votes" related to a Downtown development and that he wouldn't want to have to say, "love you man, but can't" to developer Chinedum Ndukwe, who was working with the FBI on the operation.
In their appeal, Sittenfeld's attorneys argued those statements and others were meant to underscore his commitment to supporting development and his drive to become mayor of Cincinnati. Federal prosecutors said they showed Sittenfeld was looking for a quid pro quo.
The 6th Circuit judges split 2-1 on the question. But all three wrote the case brought up questions about previous U.S. Supreme Court precedent involving public corruption.
"All the major players, except for Sittenfeld, were working for or with the government — that is, these were paid actors working to incriminate Sittenfeld," Judge John Nalbandian wrote in the court's majority opinion. "And despite nearly every relevant conversation being recorded, the investigation didn’t yield overwhelming evidence."
However, Nalbandian said a reasonable jury could infer evidence that a corrupt agreement to trade votes for campaign cash existed. Should inference alone be enough? In his opinion, Nalbandian writes that's something the Supreme Court should consider more thoroughly.
"Whether we ought to require more of the government given the First Amendment interests and the realities of our political system is a question for the Supreme Court," the opinion reads.
In a concurring opinion, Judge Eric Murphy suggests the Supreme Court take up issues related to the First Amendment cited in Sittenfeld's defense, saying he can't see the difference between what Sittenfeld did and what politicians do when they promise policy actions in campaign fundraising pitches. Murphy asks why promising pro-development decisions in exchange for contributions to a campaign is different than say, promising to oppose the Affordable Care Act in campaign fundraising literature.
"I do not have good answers to these questions because the Supreme Court has adopted a 'vague' 'line' to separate protected political speech from illegal bribery," Murphy wrote.
The third judge who heard Sittenfeld's appeal, John Bush, wanted to throw his conviction out over such questions.
"The evidence, viewed in whole, fell short of the minimum required for a rational juror to find beyond a reasonable doubt that Sittenfeld had the corrupt intent for bribery or extortion," he wrote.
What are the chances the case could go before the U.S. Supreme Court?
Northern Kentucky University Professor of Law Ken Katkin argues those statements in the court's opinions make it more likely the Supreme Court will decide to take up Sittenfeld's case.
"In a case like this, where all three Sixth Circuit judges are really crying out for them to take it, I think the odds are above 50 percent," Katkin says.
There's another factor at play, too, Katkin says. While the court only takes up about 7% of the cases it's asked to review, it considers a much higher proportion of public corruption cases — something like 30% or more.
Nothing is for certain, however. Sittenfeld's attorneys have 90 days from the 6th Circuit's Feb. 11 rejection of his appeal to file with the Supreme Court. Katkin says even if they're successful, it will be a long time before we know the outcome.
"If they agree to take the case, they're really not going to hear it until late in the fall or early 2026," he said. "And there wouldn't be a decision until spring of 2026."
Read more: