Why Clearing A Cop's Name Matters In Abramoff Scandal

In short, Clark said, the Valdes case "narrows the scope of what is an official act."

"It certainly hamstrings the use of the gratuities statute as the basis for a public corruption indictment," Brown agreed.

Not every expert agrees, of course. And lawyers are still poring over the details of the ruling. But many of those who have studied the decision closely believe that it leaves the definition of "official act" vague enough to cast doubt on all sorts of corruption cases.

Put simply: How can prosecutors know for sure what are formal and what are informal duties involved in an official act?

Some instances are clear-cut. If a lawmaker accepts money to vote in favor of a briber's interest, that is obviously a crime.

But if the lawmaker uses his powerful position to pressure a business executive to help a friend who gives him money, is that a formal official act? Maybe not.

Or what about the instance in which a lawmaker calls an executive branch official to praise a business that wants a government contract? Even though the bureaucrat understands the conversation to be a pointed request on the business's behalf, would the communication be a formal official act or an informal one?

Who knows? But that distinction could make all the difference.

All we know is that the Valdes case has raised the bar on proof for the prosecution.

"It opens the door for good defense lawyers to make arguments," Clark said. "This could open the way to a lot of tough motions to dismiss" bribery and gratuity cases.

Here are the facts of the case:

On Feb. 17, 2001, Valdes met William Blake, an FBI informant posing as a judge. They exchanged pleasantries at a popular nightclub called MCCXXIII near DuPont Circle and went on to see each other on several other occasions.