Document: 500 U.S. 257 111 S.Ct. 1807 114 L.Ed.2d 307 Robert L. McCORMICK, Petitioner,v.UNITED STATES. No. 89-1918. Argued Jan. 8, 1991. Decided May 23, Syllabus Petitioner McCormick, a member of the West Virginia House Delegates in 1984, was leading advocate legislative program allowing foreign medical school graduates to practice under temporary permits while studying for state licensing exams. Some doctors practiced years program, as they repeatedly failed those He sponsored bill, sought by an organization doctors, extending program's expiration date and later agreed sponsor legislation 1985 session that would grant permanent license virtue their experience. After advising doctors' lobbyist, during his 1984 reelection campaign, that, inter alia, he had heard nothing from received four cash payments them, which neither listed campaign contributions nor reported income on federal tax return. In 1985, legislation, and, after it enacted, another payment doctors. Subsequently, indicted Federal District Court five counts violating Hobbs Act, extorting color official right, one count filing false The jury instructed extortion right does not occur where "public receives . voluntary political contribution" "[v]oluntary is freely given without expectation benefit." also "voluntary" contribution taxable provided money used expenses. McCormick convicted Act violation, Appeals affirmed. It found elected official's conviction require proof quid pro quo—a made return explicit promise or undertaking perform act—unless are "legitimate" contributions. then seven factors be considered making determination concluded extorted parties never intended contribution. Held: 1. erred affirming McCormick's because quo necessary when contribution, regardless whether legitimate Pp. 268-275. (a) court affirmed legal factual grounds were submitted announced rule law determining sufficient evidence support its findings. Assuming correct law, judgment should have been set aside new trial ordered, since matters intent consider, each court's presents issue historical fact. 269-270. (b) A violation out here even assuming unfavorable response all Appeals' inquiries, including acted capacity at near time payment, supported before solicited payor individually. To hold legislators commit crime act constituents' benefit furthering interests, shortly solicit receive beneficiaries, unrealistic assessment what Congress could meant obtaining property "under right" crime. Rather, these circumstances, only asserts conduct will controlled terms undertaking. 271-274. (c) Government's argument basis mere speculation, instructions permitted find guilty if though voluntary. Nor can relied show believed purposes, instruction convict count. 274-275. 2. basing affirmance solely conviction. demonstrate hence taxable, charge convinced but extorted. However, this finding necessarily exhaust possible 275-276. 896 F.2d 61 (CA 4 1990), reversed remanded. WHITE, J., delivered opinion Court, REHNQUIST, C.J., MARSHALL, SCALIA, KENNEDY, SOUTER, JJ., joined. filed concurring opinion. STEVENS, dissenting opinion, BLACKMUN O'CONNOR, Rudolph di Trapano, Charleston, W.Va., petitioner. Christopher J. Wright, Washington, D.C., respondent. Justice WHITE Court. 1 This case requires us consider properly petitioner, public official, 18 U.S.C. § 1951. We must address petitioner's 2 * 1984. represented district long suffered shortage For several years, allowed Under some supporter program. 3 early 1980's, following move end permit temporarily licensed formed press interests Charleston. hired John Vandergrift, who worked extend version proposed bill passed year. Shortly thereafter, Vandergrift discussed possibility introducing such legislation. During informed expensive, paid considerable sums own pocket, anything Tr. 167-168. told contact see do. Id., 168. contacted $1,200 cash. envelope containing nine $100 bills McCormick. Later same day, second delivery $2,000 fall two more did list any contributions1 report And although kept detailed books expenditures, entries accompanied initials other codes signifying 5 spring permitting experienced permanently passing spoke length favor floor debate ultimately enacted into law. Two weeks 6 Following investigation, grand returned indictment charging with Act,2 26 7206(1),3 failing At close 6-day trial, establish Government prove induced so knowingly willfully extortion. As margin, defined "extortion" elaborated required respect counts.4 7 next day "would like hear again particular emphasis definition "Extortion means obtained lawfully due owing him office. specific acts demonstrating force, threats, use fear victim consented office position held official. "Where, here, charges alleged committed government need extortion, unlicensed was, fact, question made, may been, is, indicate you conceivably case, course, moment. whenever officer makes wrongful obtain misuse which, itself, supplies element coercion. Therefore, power actual threatened violence, fear. "If knows motivation make focuses office, represented, satisfy government's burden showing right. money, however, constitute "Finally, defendant actually possessed authority over passage question. Similarly, directly shows deliver someone result defendant's regards portion moneys income." App. 27. reread most 8 "There has well session, meet requirements areas needed physicians. 9 "It illegal, accept 10 "In order Mr. first beyond reasonable doubt behalf influence conduct, knowledge part held. 11 legislator contributions, himself legislators, individuals special interest pending solicitation receipt violates wrongfully 12 "Many officials who, knows, motivated general gratitude toward certain issues important hope good generated receptive cause. 13 "The illegal. jury, reordered paragraphs significant addition: 14 Of gift local Voluntary 30. 15 worth noting last supplemental follows: 16 17 held." 33-34. (charging receiving initial $900 payment) reach verdicts remaining counts. declared mistrial 19 affirmed, observing nonelected granted advantage exchange them standard than (CA4 1990). stating prosecuted id., 65, rejected contention requires, quo, i.e., action inaction received. 66. interpreted statute requiring Ibid. listing canvassing record evidence, concluded: 20 "Under facts, continued Further, supports conclusion we refuse reverse jury's verdict against Act." 67. 21 22 Because disagreement Courts regarding meaning phrase Act,5 certiorari. 498 ----, 37, 112 (1990). remand further proceedings. II 23 challenge below limited rejection claim violate Act. Except belated us,6 rulings courts application determined Hence, do how applied contexts. respects, agree erred. 24 First, quite sure jury. Although challenged adequacy distinguish between illegal examine mention court. dealt submission too confusing give adequate guidance nor, specifically, vulnerable word "in places course instructions," 30, "that Neither note accordance holding difference illegitimate intention considering specified factors.7 Instead, Appeals, announcing went findings 25 goes saying consider. Cheek v. United States, 604, 617 (1991). plain thought parties' present Thus ordered. Bollenbach 326 607, 613-614, 66 402, 405-406, 90 L.Ed. 350 (1946); Cole Arkansas, 333 196, 201-202, 68 514, 517, 92 644 (1948). Cf. Kotteakos 328 750, 763 Cabana Bullock, 474 376, 384, 106 689, 695-96, 88 704 (1986); Carpenters 330 395, 408, 67 775, 782, 91 973 (1947). If no reason, therefore, remanded proceedings.8 B proper inquire fact relevant consideration pursuing inquiry. But cannot approach distinguishing stated proving "were contributions." F.2d, (emphasis added).9 issue, read involved inquiries; applying relevant, arrived conclusions: first, "[f]urther", 67, all. conclusion, especially light second, illegitimate, extortionate payments. 27 based considered, possibly themselves amount three telling factors, namely, payor; payment; indirectly individually payment. Even inquiries very likely view, out, asserted. 28 Serving constituents supporting groups therein everyday business legislator. true campaigns run financed. Money constantly being candidates, platforms views intend done. Whatever ethical considerations appearances indicate, constituents, another, consent, right." otherwise open prosecution within real sense unavoidable election financed private beginning Nation. statutory language contains justify contrary conclusion. States Enmons, 410 396, 411, 93 1007, 1015, 35 379 (1973). 29 say impossible financing campaign. Political having taken act. situations 30 formulation defines forbidden zone clarity. Fifth Circuit observed Dozier, 672 531, 537 (1982): 31 "A moment's reflection enable distinguish, least abstract, exaction fee conferred injury withheld. Whether described familiarly payoff Latinate precision prohibited same: demand inducement (or perform) act." 32 agrees essential conviction, Brief 29-30, quotes subject Department Manual 9-85A.306, p. 9-1938.134 (Supp.1988-2): "campaign authorized unless proven performance abstaining act; might violation." thus disagree contribution.10 By token, hold, urges, Court's effect error.11 III 33 nevertheless insists amply finding. model clarity, benefit; instructions, whole, payments, influenced knew expectation. none speculation rather impermissible 34 submits plainly Again, disagree, among things, "constituted income," added), failure understood mean said meant, benefit. They inferred so, Furthermore, expenses reimburse expenses, See 24-26, 36-37. Contrary contention, determine saved theory. IV sole ground violated facts implicitly indicates attempts characterize contribution." repeats error Had focused obvious knowing taxable. 36 relying thereon decide whether, absence That option remand. V 37 Accordingly proceedings consistent 38 So 39 concurring. 40 I assumption briefed argued, reasons assigns. prohibition 1951, includes source duties, ambiguously assuredly not, discusses cover anticipation favorable future action, opposed action. 41 unusual unsettling, distinction hint justification text: 1951 colorable allusion quos. doubly unsettling there interpretation render unnecessary. While feel justified adopting briefing argument, comfortable giving tacit approval contradicts it. write, few words concerning text statute, history produced unexamined underlying our 42 Section 1951(a) provides: "Whoever way degree obstructs, delays, affects commerce movement article commodity commerce, robbery shall fined $10,000 imprisoned twenty both." 1951(b)(2) "the fear, provisions Anti-Racketeering 1934, 48 Stat. 979, carried forward change 1948. enactment, indication sort here. 43 When, 1960s, occurred prosecutors essentially soliciting bribes officials, unimpressed notion. accepted, requested, designed procure Hyde, 448 815, 833 (CA5 1971) ("The bribery therefore lack voluntariness victim"); Addonizio, 451 49, 72 (CA3 ("[W]hile essence voluntariness, duress"); Kubacki, 237 F.Supp. 638, 641 (ED Pa.1965) (same). Not until 1972 apply bribery. Kenny, 462 1205, 1229 1972) ("kickbacks" construction contractors established right," despite "threat, duress"). soon followed Seventh Braasch, 505 139, 151 (1974), "[s]o recipient's falls ambit 1951." subsequent cases debated academic writing, compare Ruff, Prosecution Local Corruption: Case Study Making Law Enforcement Policy, 65 Georgetown L.J. 1171 (1977) (criticizing Kenny ), Lindgren, Elusive Distinction Bribery Extortion: From Common UCLA L.Rev. 815 (1988) (defending accepted expansion little disagreement, see, e.g., Harding, 563 299, 302-303 (CA6 1977); Hathaway, 534 386, 393 (CA1 1976); Hall, 536 313, 320-321 (CA10 Cerilli, 603 415, 426-437 1979) (Aldisert, dissenting), occasion matter. 44 acceptance "on account one's office" brings statute's reach, creates necessity textually inexplicable today. questionable. " naturally connotes assertion entitlement property. comport common One treatise writer, describing "extortion officer," states: "At pretense entitled thereto thing claimed person paying yielded authority." R. Anderson, Wharton's Criminal Procedure 790-791 (1957). 45 appears New York contained identical upon based, supra, 1183, separate offenses. An charged defend People Feld, 262 A.D. 909, N.Y.S.2d 796, 797 (Sup.Ct.1941); Dioguardi, N.Y.2d 260, 273-274, 203 870, 168 N.E.2d 683 (1960). am aware pre-Hobbs involving defendant, justice peace, extracted litigant fee. Whaley, Cow. (N.Y.) 661, 661-663 (Sup.Ct.1827). 46 Finally, Code explicitly criminalizes calls bribery, extortion—and laws (but unlike of) punishes 201(b) (criminalizing officials).* Compare 872 provision punishment extorted). Travel 1952, interstate purposes bribery—and reaches, both bribe. 47 raise it, advanced persuasive responses. See, 837-889 (arguing offenses coerced payment). assumptions becoming, force usage, unsound Moskal 461, 449 Before asked go down road unapparent distinctions "payment action" statute—as unquestionably asked, ante, 267, n. think bear mind exist. whom O'CONNOR join, dissenting. 49 judge's reversal preserved, objection Rule Rules provides, part: "No party assign omission therefrom objects retires verdict, distinctly matter objection." 50 disapproval portions reasoning reversing judgment. perfectly clear presented petitioner imply promises threats pressuring him. Apart criticism final analysis, rests view incomplete adequately define concept "explicit" threat) my event, extent ambiguous, preserve objection. 51 argued evidence. reviewing appellate must, "most Government." Glasser 315 60, 80, 62 457, 469, 86 680 (1942). viewed, 52 Petitioner's stages. Toward "unfriendly" conversation representative implied threat take implicit appropriate made. applies equally comparable known thug's offer protect storekeeper risk severe damage consideration. thug needs get message across. 53 completed June 1, personally income, together circumstantial induce favorably His covert cash—indeed, denial payment—supports payers' (at least) promised provide sought. 54 understand understanding personal endeavor payers implicit. requirement agreements, form. Subtle just wrongful—and probably much kind express seems require. 55 Nevertheless, contingent mutual payer's desire avoid harm apparent deliver, either through sense, "quid quo." Latin term tends confuse clarify instructions. 56 explained, complete pursuant carry earlier withhold instead What thereafter evidentiary significance, undo uncommitted offense. When took guilty. quo—his legislation—was case. conversely, anyway defense already extorts protection bluff smashed shopkeeper's windows unsuccessful. correctly advised postpayment illustrated excerpts instructions: 57 58 59 60 misused persons, allegedly money. Though gotten occurred, accepts fair treatment, were, inherent exercise discretion adverse manner. actions purpose, irrelevant indictment. 63 "So nature owed. Such may, forthcoming not. event crime." 20-22.1 64 single sentence: "Voluntary Ante, 265; 269, 272-273, treats sentence involuntary constitutes contributor expects candidate's election.2 gross misreading context entire context, specifically donor candidate once sense; reading donors her legitimate. If, know judgment, attention critical contributor's made.3 improvement, certainly advise now believes detected. 69 argue erroneous refusing tendered. Nor, request judge instruct distinguished illegally "implicit treatment" came tendered trial. example, requested number 8-A 70 "To 71 "This himself. communicated prior office." Record, Supp. 11-A 73 [the doctors] expectation." 74 17, began sentence, "When teatment, manner" object substance. 1070 (Dec. 5, 1988). 1071, 1077-1078 (petitioner's counsel conceding violation). 75 Given largely tracked reason inadequate. fairly tried affirm Appeals. opinion.4 rest theories ones 76 respectfully dissent. prohibits excess $50 per person. W.Va.Code 3-8-5d provides "(a) Whoever section both. "(b) section— "(2) 'extortion' 7206 Internal Revenue that: "Any who— "(1) Willfully subscribes verified written declaration penalties perjury, believe every material felony. ." discussing charges: "Now, used. 'wrongful' unfairly unjustly lawful thereto. "As inducement, persons property, element, enough benefactor transferred something value, refrain harmful events two, occurring you'll recall forth adduced, surrounding work spoken any, connection therewith. three, four, five, thereon. "And overt form demand, subtle custom any. committing Delegates. "While interfere natural consequences delay, interrupt, adversely affect flow activities states. "Potential element." 17-22. Until 1970's, prosecutions rested allegations consent transferor "induced fear—"; "color standing alone. Beginning 1205 1972), disjunctive 1951(b)(2), violence necessary. Only claims construed "induced" payor's affirmative solicitation. holdings, payee's purpose influencing actions. Second Circuit, en banc, shown O'Grady, 742 682 (1984). 1988, Ninth overruling decision expressing majority rule. Aguon, 851 1158 (1988). Other expressed O'Grady Aguon. Evans, 910 790, 796-797 (CA11 cert. pending, 90-6105; Spitler, 800 1267, 1274 1986); Paschall, 772 68, 1985). conflict clear, resolve satisfied profferred inadequate inducement. Appeals; address, violative unnecessary incident Trotta, 525 1096 (CA2 1975), similar view. appear quo. Bibby, 752 1116, 1127, 1985); Haimowitz, 725 1561, 1573, 1577 1984); 1982). STEVENS dissent bald "[i]t him." Post, 281. STEVENS' suggestion, main throughout indicates, far "perfectly clear" met regard. merits corruption falsely represents receives. These arguments below. expressly questions petition certiorari arguably subsumed presented. many approving lower recognize inapplicable brought false-pretenses French, 628 1069 (CA8 1980); Mazzei, 521 639 1975) (en banc); Price, 507 1349, 1350 1974) (per curiam ); 150-151 (CA7 1974), convictions misrepresentation origin right", Between U.C.L.A. Rev. (1988), interpret argues. Accordingly, comply rules, untimely, further. Berkemer McCarty, 468 420, 443, 38, 104 3138, 3152, 82 317 "Some circumstances include, to, (1) recorded (2) (3) cash, (4) (5) payor, (6) (7) payment." 61, apparently refuses indicated above, alone, dealing errors, reversed. erroneously suggests, post, 289, 4, procedural posture different Arizona Fulminante, 499 1246, 113 302 (1991), reasoning. analogy draw inapt misses point criminal constitutionally liability instance. conviction; impose theory Supreme retries appeal ever Appellate please simply ask Indeed, requirement. 1067. 33-34, almost 11-A, Record fell short essential. chose briefs. noted previously, 268-269, exists contexts, gifts, meals, travel items value. holding, mentioned 201(b)(2) prescribes anyone "being selected indirectly, corruptly demands, seeks, receives, accepts, value entity, for: "(A) "(B) aid committing, collude in, allow, fraud, opportunity commission fraud States; "(C) omit duty person." 201(b)(1) "corruptly gives, offers official" purposes. clear: [p. 1243] indictment." 32. that's we're concerned with, country goodwill itself illegal." 33. "Serving 'under right.' conclusion." 272-273. validity respondent's outset well-established proposition judged artificial isolation, viewed overall charge. Boyd 271 104, 107, 442, 857 (1926). rise level constitutional error, Cool 409 100, 354, 335 (1972), commonly culmination testimony witnesses, counsel, exhibits judge. process components conviction." Cupp Naughten, 414 141, 146-147, 94 400, 368 cites novel suggestion reversible Just Term, --- analysis. confession suppressed harmless-error analysis save reversed, applicable confessions, harmless. K Mart Corp. Cartier, Inc., 485 176, 185, 108 950, 957, 99 ("Although reject ."); Chevron U.S.A. Inc. Natural Resources Defense Council, 467 837, 842, 2778, 2781, 81 694 (1984) ("[S]ince reviews judgments, opinions, resulted (footnotes omitted)).

Category: 7