U.S. v. Renzi, No. 10-10088 (6-23-11) (Tallman with Callahan and Donlon, D.J.).
Daresay that we will see little use of this precedent in indigent defense. The 9th denies dismissal of an indictment against a former Congressman, who argued that the Speech and Debate Clause of the U.S. Constitution barred prosecution of him. The allegations involved a quid pro quo buying of land by a former business partner who owed defendant a debt in exchange for future support of public land exchanges. The defendant argued that he did not even have to defend himself against these charges because his acts as a legislator fell under the Speech and Debate protection. No, said the 9th, the the clause does not shield against public corruption and the acts here were not protected.