UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
PATRICIA DAVIS, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT

11th Cir. | 1994-08-09
No. 90-7108
Before KRAVITCH and EDMONDSON, Circuit Judges, and GODBOLD, Senior Circuit Judge.
30 F.3d 108 Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit (1994) Caution
Cited by 10 cases
Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM:

PER CURIAM: We previously affirmed appellant Davis’s conviction on charges of violating the Hobbs Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1951, and reversed and remanded on a sentencing matter. 967 F. 2d 516 (11th Cir.1992).

Davis has moved for rehearing on a single issue: whether to establish Hobbs Act extortion, the government must prove that the defendant explicitly promised to take or refrain from some action in consideration of the allegedly illegal payment received; in other words, whether the government must prove a specific quid pro quo (and, more particularly, whether the jury must be charged on the speeifie-gmci pro quo element).

The petition is granted. For the reasons stated in United States v. Martinez, 14 F. 3d 543, 552-554 (11th Cir.1994), under United States Supreme Court precedent, an explicit promise by a public official to act or not act is an essential element of Hobbs Act extortion, and the defendant is entitled to a reasonably clear jury instruction to that effect. See also United States v. Allen, 10 F. 3d 405, 411 (7th Cir.1993); United States v. Farley, 2 F. 3d 645, 651 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 114 S.Ct. 649, 126 L.Ed.2d 607 (1993); United States v. Garcia, 992 F. 2d 409, 414 (2d Cir.1993); United States v. Taylor, 993 F. 2d 382, 384 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 114 S.Ct. 249, 126 L.Ed.2d 202 (1993).

Because the district court failed to charge Davis’s jury as to the necessity of finding an explicit promise before the jury properly could convict — and indeed informed the jury that “a specific quid pro quo is not always necessary for a public official to be guilty of extortion” — appellant’s conviction is due to be REVERSED and the case REMANDED to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. SO ORDERED. . Evans v. United States, - U.S. -, 112 S.Ct. 1881, 119 L.Ed.2d 57 (1992); McCormick v. United States, 500 U.S. 257, 111 S.Ct. 1807, 114 L.Ed.2d 307 (1991).

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • United States v. Shenberg, 89 F.3d 1461 (11th Cir. 1996)
    …. Long, 935 F. 2d 1207, 1210 (11th Cir.1991)) (emphasis in original). “It is the perpetrator’s perception, not actual vulnerability, that triggers enhancement.” United States v. Davis, 967 F. 2d 516, 523 n. 8 (11th Cir.1992), rev’d on other grounds, 30 F. 3d 108 (11th Cir.1994) (government agent posing as extortion victim did not affect the “vulnerable victim” analysis because the defendant did not know of victim’s affiliation with the government). Adhering to this line of reasoning, we conclude that the…
  • United States v. Siegelman, 640 F.3d 1159 (11th Cir. 2011)
    …ntrary authority, relying instead on inapposite authority not involving campaign contributions. . The Latin means “something for something,” Black’s Law Dictionary 1282 (8th ed. 2004). . Nor is this court's prior holding in United States v. Davis, 30 F. 3d 108 (11th Cir.1994), to the contrary. In Davis, we acknowledged that, after McCormick, "an explicit promise by a public official to act or not act is an essential element of Hobbs Act extortion, and the defendant is entitled to a reasonably clear jury…
  • United States v. Page, 69 F.3d 482 (11th Cir. 1995)
    …pplication of § 3A1.1 presents a mixed question of law and fact, which we review de novo.’ ” United States v. Thomas, 62 F. 3d 1332, 1344 (11th Cir.1995) (quoting United States v. Davis, 967 F. 2d 516, 523 (11th Cir.1992), reversed on other grounds, 30 F. 3d 108 (11th Cir.1994)). We have recognized, however, that the district court’s determination of a victim’s “vulnerability” is essentially a factual finding to which we should give due deference. See United States v. Salemi, 26 F. 3d 1084, 1087 (11th Cir…
    1 / 2

Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw