9/15/2023 0 Comments Who was jim butler productionsIn addition, we cited some courts which have defined extortion as "the wrongful taking of money by a public officer, whether accompanied by 'threats' or not." State v. The Harding Court referred to a number of state and federal decisions holding that "extortion" covers a wide range of activity, including what is commonly understood as bribery, and that extortion and bribery are not mutually exclusive. In light of an almost unanimous holding by the circuits that bribery and extortion are not mutually exclusive, we hold that any wrongful use of a public official's power for private personal gain is proscribed by the Hobbs Act. We are not unmindful of the prior law in other circuits holding that initiative and purpose on the part of the official, and fear and lack of voluntariness on the part of the victim, are essential to the distinction between bribery and extortion, only the latter of which is cognizable under the Hobbs Act. 6 We find no abuse of discretion, in light of the above discussion. Shelton, 573 F.2d 917), to give the instruction that it did. A review of the record reveals that the trial court considered the distinction, and used its discretion in light of the recent Sixth Circuit opinions in Harding and Shelton (U. The difficult issue in this case is the trial court's jury instructions, which permitted the jury to find extortion without finding that Hyden and Butler had "initiated" or "induced" the illicit transfer of payment. Moreover, there is some evidence in the record indicating that in each instance, Whitehead, was approached by appellants with this scheme. However, even assuming no impending economic loss on Whitehead's part, the court may find extortion in appellants' wrongful use of their power to gain personal financial reward. The record does not disclose any duress on the part of Whitehead, in the sense that he faced economic loss in not having the priority moved up (although he was clearly in a better position to make a financial profit once his land was developed). Indeed, the party most under duress, financial duress, seemed to be Hyden which Whitehead turned to his advantage, by offering to assist him financially in return for the favor of moving up the priority of his projects. 2d 775 (1975).Īssuming the truth of the claims made by Butler in his defense, the fact situation in the instant case is somewhat unusual in that Whitehead testified to having made the payments of money and property willingly and voluntarily. Harding, supra, a showing that the motivation for the payment focuses on the recipient's office, regardless of who induces the payments, is sufficient to convict under the Hobbs Act. As this court recently held in United States v. Butler's contention that a distinction under the Act is drawn between the voluntary payment of a bribe, and extortion, by way of the inducement or initiation of such payment, is a technical overdrawn distinction which is in keeping with neither the legislative intent of the statute, nor recent case law holding that in cases of misuse of official power, bribery and extortion are not mutually exclusive. Again, the wheels were put into motion, and as with the Germantown Road and North Watkins Projects, construction of the Holmes Road Project was advanced in priority, and approximately $400,000.00 in funds was appropriated for the purchase of the right-of-way through Whitehead's property.Īssuming arguendo, that Butler's conduct consisted of the mere passive acceptance of a bribe, it is the position of the United States that such conduct, whether the solicitation of, or the mere acceptance of, illicit payments for the desired "official action", was a clear abuse of Butler's office, falling within the proscriptions of the Act. Whitehead agreed to this arrangement, again with the understanding that the priority of the Holmes Road Project first be advanced. Whitehead testified that when he refused to acknowledge the debt, Hyden suggested that the priority of the Holmes Road Project could be advanced, and Whitehead would be paid for a right-of-way through his property as in the North Watkins Project, if Whitehead would agree to pay Hyden the $100,000.00 from the proceeds of such a sale. On the Holmes Road Project, Hyden initially suggested the possibility of advancing the priority of the project during a conversation with Whitehead concerning the collection of a $100,000.00 debt allegedly owed him (Hyden) as a result of his actions in causing the advancement in priority of the Germantown Road Extended Project.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |