The appellate court ruled that instructions to jurors were too broad when compared to the new guidelines devised by the Supreme Court.

Acting U.S. Attorney Joon Kim issued a statement that Silver should expect a new trial and expressed confidence that even with narrower jury instructions Silver would be convicted again. At the same time, Silver’s lawyers said “We’re absolutely delighted with the result, and look forward in the future to a full Silver vindication.”

Preet Bharara, the U.S. Attorney who pursued Silver’s conviction, said on Twitter, “The evidence was strong. The Supreme Court changed the law. I expect Sheldon Silver to be retried and re-convicted.”

Former assemblyman Sheldon Silver was convicted of fraud, bribery, and extortion in 2015. But his lawyers argued yesterday before a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit that a Supreme Court decision in 2016 changed the parameters of his prosecution and that his conviction should be overturned.

Prosecutors in 2015 argued that a variety of actions by Silver were “official acts” influenced by personal dealings, intermingling state grant disbursements and rent control legislation with things like finding a job for the son of a doctor who pushed business to Silver’s law firm. And jury instructions in that trial similarly did not make any distinction between those activities.

But a 2016 decision by the Supreme Court acquitted Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell by narrowing the definition of “official acts” to include only acts performed as an official, like passing legislation, not things like setting up meetings between individuals.

Silver did both. But because the instructions to the jury were broader than the subsequent Supreme Court decision allow, there’s no way to know how the jury reached its decision.

As I understand it, the Second Circuit could let the conviction stand, overturn it, or allow for a new trial under the more stringent definition of “official acts”.

Silver was sentenced last year to 12 years in prison, but he has remained at home in Hillman pending appeal.

Read reporting from yesterday’s hearing in the New York Times and Daily News.

Disgraced former assemblyman Sheldon Silver has been home on Grand Street even after his 2015 federal conviction on corruption charges, pending appeal. Well, that appeal is finally set for this Thursday in front of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

At issue is whether Silver’s help getting state funding for cancer specialist Dr. Robert N. Taub in exchange for litigation cases for Silver’s law firm (and referral fees for Silver) constituted “official acts” according to a narrow definition of that term adopted by the Supreme Court last year (McDonnell v. United States).

By the way, the Lo-Down helpfully pointed out that Assistant U.S. Attorney Andrew Goldstein, who took the lead in prosecuting Silver in 2015, is still in charge of the case even after Preet Bharara’s dismissal last week as U.S. Attorney.

Pension forfeiture will be on the ballot in November in the form of a proposed amendment to the state constitution. Two successive sessions in Albany have now passed a resolution subjecting the pension benefits of convicted legislators and state officers to court-reviewed reduction, meaning that voters now have the chance to directly approve the measure.

But there’s a loophole for our neighbor Sheldon Silver, convicted in 2015 on federal corruption charges: the new rules would apply only to crimes committed on or after January 1, 2018.

Sheldon Silver currently lives at home, awaiting appeal, collecting a state pension of $79,222. Even if this constitutional amendment is approved, and even if Silver starts to serve out his 12-year prison sentence, New York taxpayers will continue to pay.

That evidence was put forward by federal prosecutors last fall but denied to jurors through successful arguments by Silver’s defense attorneys. Freedom of Information Act requests by the New York Times and NBC now put Judge Valerie E. Caproni in the position of deciding how to balance the rights of privacy for people named in those motions and the right of the public to have all the information gathered by lawyers from both sides. Judge Caproni seems to be leaning toward releasing all material but redacting the names of anyone not introduced formally as part of the trial.

The timeline calls for expeditious release, within the next two weeks.

Read more at nytimes.com.