Opinion ID: 856115
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Continued Prosecution After Dismissal of

Text: Hobbs Act Charges Manzo contends that his prosecution was either vexatious or frivolous because, even after we affirmed the District Court‟s dismissal of the Hobbs Act charges, the government continued to pursue him on the remaining Travel Act and misprision of a felony charges. Manzo insists that, by nonetheless proceeding with its prosecution, the government “was nothing less th[a]n defiant, and the second superseding indictment no longer supported a position of first impression.” (Manzo‟s Opening Br. at 19.) That charge fails to establish an abuse of discretion. The District Court dismissed the Hobbs Act charges because, during the time of the alleged conduct, Manzo was only a candidate for public office and therefore did not act “„under color of official right.‟” (Order on Motion in Limine at 24 (D.N.J. May 18, 2010), ECF No. 33 (quoting 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a)).) At the same time, however, the Court declined to dismiss the Travel Act charges and expressly rejected Manzo‟s argument that, because he was “merely a candidate and not one that was at least elected,” his conduct did not fall within New Jersey‟s bribery statute. (Supplemental App. at 166.) The Court opined that, under a “plain reading,” the bribery statute “encompasses prosecutions where the person 10 whom the action was sought to influence was not yet qualified or [able] to act in a desired way for any reason.” (Supplemental App. at 166.) As noted earlier, we affirmed on interlocutory appeal the dismissal of the Hobbs Act charges. It was only then that, upon reconsideration, the District Court dismissed the Travel Act charges because it concluded that New Jersey‟s bribery statute does not criminalize bribes to candidates for public office (as opposed to officeholders). Given the District Court‟s original ruling on the applicability of the New Jersey bribery statute, the government‟s continued prosecution of Manzo under the remaining Travel Act charges was clearly not vexatious, since it was not “objectively deficient.” Knott, 256 F.3d at 29. Nor was it frivolous. “Once a district court judge accepts the government‟s legal position it will be extremely difficult to persuade us that the issue was not debatable among reasonable lawyers and jurists, i.e., that it was frivolous.” Gilbert, 198 F.3d at 1304. In fact, the District Court‟s original ruling on the applicability of the New Jersey bribery statute left the government with an objectively reasonable belief that its legal position would prevail. We accordingly reject Manzo‟s argument that the government‟s continued prosecution was vexatious or frivolous. 11