Opinion ID: 654260
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Jury Instructions Defining Under Color of Official Right

Text: 50 Netters challenges the district court's jury instruction # 40 as a misstatement of the law concerning acts under color of official right. Specifically, Netters contends that the district judge instructed the jury that a legislative employee could act under color of official right whenever that employee did his job. 51 Whether a jury instruction misstates the elements of a statutory crime is a question of law reviewed de novo. United States v. Johnson, 956 F.2d 197, 199 (9th Cir.1992). Jury instruction # 40 provided: 52 An individual employed by the Legislature, but who is not himself an elected official, may act under color of official right (1) if the employee exercised powers that are expressly or impliedly delegated to that employee by an elected official, or (2) if the employee acts with the apparent authority to exercise official powers, whether actually delegated or not, and the alleged victim believes that the employee is authorized to exercise such powers. 53 The district court also instructed the jury that to prove that the defendant acted under color of official right, the Government was required to show specific conduct by the defendant demonstrating a corrupt intent to induce a payment. The district court made it clear that the mere acceptance of a payment by a public official, even when the public official knows that his office is the motivation behind the payment, is not extortion under color of official right. 54 Finally, the district court advised the jury that it is not illegal, in and of itself, for a public official or legislative employee to solicit or accept campaign contributions from individuals who have a special interest in legislation. If the payments the Government alleges were extorted were made in the form of campaign contributions, the Government must prove a quid pro quo, that is, that the payments were made in return for an explicit promise or undertaking by the defendant to perform or not to perform an official act. 55 When the district court's jury instructions are considered together, it becomes clear that Netters' argument that the district judge instructed the jury that a legislative employee could act under color of official right whenever that employee did his job is completely without merit. The district court repeatedly emphasized that the Government must prove both that the defendant demonstrated a corrupt intent to induce a payment and that there was a quid pro quo, not simply a campaign contribution. 56 Because we hold that a nonelected, nonappointed, government employee may be found guilty of official right extortion, we approve the district court's instructions. They were neither misleading nor inadequate to guide the jury's deliberations. SeeUnited States v. Joetzki, 952 F.2d 1090, 1095 (9th Cir.1991).