In court documents received by the Indiana Court of Appeals earlier this week, Danny Tanoos compared his bribery case to Gov. Holcomb riding in a private jet owned by a businessman who looked to gain from gaming legislation making its way through the Indiana Statehouse.
Tanoos is currently appealing a Marion County Court decision to deny his motion to dismiss charges. The first step in that process was a Motion for Discretionary Interlocutory Appeal.
In the document, Tanoos’ legal team argued that Indiana does not recognize a “generalized bribery” theory. They cited a case in which defendants were on trial for paying money to house a representative with the intent that the lawmaker would support legislative items that would benefit them. In that particular case, the Court of Appeals reversed a trial court’s denial of a motion to dismiss charges.
It was also argued that the United State Supreme Court recently ruled that in a bribery case, the term “official act” must “be defined with sufficient definiteness that ordinary people can understand what conduct is prohibited.”
According to the court documents, if Tanoos’ case was not dismissed, it would negate the generalized bribery theory and open the door for politicians, such as the governor, to be prosecuted for “accepting gifts, donations or money that could be perceceived as influencing the receiving public official.”
