Court Opinion

ID: 9483074
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 09:09:53.800335+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:49:24.078875
License: Public Domain

EDMONDSON, Circuit Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part:
I would affirm the district court’s judgment in all respects.
I believe Mr. Stewart was — as the district court found and concluded — particu*525larly susceptible to extortion. Mr. Stewart was politically naive and, more important, Mr. Stewart’s union-worker constituency— many of whom were already unemployed— depended on the health of the Alabama coal industry for their livelihoods which were in jeopardy. I do not believe all victims of extortion by means of fraud are equally vulnerable; although it is true that extortionists choose people who the extortionists believe are vulnerable, vulnerability levels (even among the vulnerable) can vary.
A politically naive local union leader carrying the heavy burden of responsibility for his hard-working constituents’ livelihood in difficult economic times looked like easy prey to Davis. Then by invoking the spectre of big businesses’ opposition to Stewart’s legislative goals, Davis capitalized on Stewart’s particular vulnerability even more. And, although I admit that I do not understand the “depravity” standard (it seems too vague to be useful) applied in today’s court opinion, I think Davis’s conduct was depraved enough to warrant extra punishment.