Court Opinion

ID: 9461016
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 22:04:02.532845+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:36:51.379337
License: Public Domain

WILLIAM J. CAMPBELL,
Senior District Judge (concurring).
I concur fully in Judge SPRECHER’s excellent opinion, and wish only to briefly state my own views with respect to defendant’s contention that his actions constituted no more than the acceptance of a bribe, and that his conduct was therefore not extortionate in character. The government need not demonstrate that a defendant, charged with extortion under color of official' right, has obtained the property of another through the use of force, duress, fear or the threat of same. The evidence need only demonstrate that the public official has obtained from the “victim” something of value to which the official is not entitled, in return for something that should *883have been provided without payment, The office held by the official provides the coercive impetus which generates the payment.
In the instant case, the alderman’s duties included the objective and unbiased evaluation of applications for zoning variances. Staszcuk was paid money by virtue of his office as alderman so that the powers of that office would not be misused to the detriment of the payor, or at a minimum, to insure that the zoning application would receive the fair and unbiased consideration which it should have been afforded without the encouragement of additional compensation. Thus, the office provided the duress which rendered the acceptance of money by Staszcuk extortion under color of official right.
That is not to say, however, that, as the government contends in the instant case, there is no distinction between the acceptance of a bribe by a public official and extortion under color of official right. For example, assume that a public official has been paid a sum of money to induce him to use his position and influence to obtain a building permit on behalf of an applicant who is clearly not entitled under the law to such a permit. In such a case, the money which the public official receives is not being paid to prevent the coercive use of his office, but rather to assist the payor in his efforts to obtain something to which he is not lawfully entitled. As the court stated in United States v. Pranno, 385 F.2d 387, 390 (7th Cir. 1967) “it might be solely a bribe and not extortion if the record showed that the issuance of the permit was illegal . . .”.
Finally, contrary to the defendant’s contention in the instant case, bribery and extortion are not necessarily mutually exclusive offenses. Pranno, supra at 390. A single payment may be made for more than one purpose, particularly where there exists some question regarding whether the payor is legally entitled to that for which he tenders payment. Where such is the case, the government need only prove the extortionate element of the transaction to support a charge of extortion under color of official right.