Court Opinion

ID: 9469275
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 02:36:15.046716+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:41:18.462143
License: Public Domain

GARWOOD, Circuit Judge,
dissenting:
I respectfully dissent. I would hold count one deficient.1 So far as I am aware this is *511the first appellate opinion expressly passing on a Hobbs Act indictment where the interstate commerce aspects of the offense have been alleged only in terms of the broadest and most generic legal conclusions and where even the general nature of the asserted interstate commerce nexus is not inferable from the charge as a whole.
The interstate commerce allegations here simply refer to “interstate commerce as that term is defined in United States Code, Section 1951(b)(3).” The referenced definition is of little help; it gives a few examples, some obvious (commerce between points in different states) and others not (commerce within the District of Columbia or any Territory), and concludes by covering “all other commerce over which the United States has jurisdiction.” The indictment does not allege that any business of the contractor-victim — either that done with the School Board or otherwise — affected or was in interstate commerce. Indeed, there is no description or identification whatever of the contractor or of the business or type of business he (or she or it) did, either generally or with the School Board. There is no allegation that the activities of the School Board, either generally or in relation to the contractor, affected or were in interstate commerce. There is no allegation that the extortion was to any extent effected or carried out through the use of interstate commerce facilities, nor are any matters alleged so indicating. It is simply impossible to infer from the indictment whether the interstate nexus charged was the business done by the contractor with the School Board, or the contractor’s business generally, or the School Board’s activities generally, or the means used to effect or carry out the extortion, or some combination of the foregoing.
I do not suggest that the government be required to plead evidentiary detail in an indictment. It need do no more than generally identify the subject matter of the alleged interstate nexus. For example, if the nexus were a contract between the victim and the School Board, the indictment would merely have to generally identify the contract and allege that it affected or involved interstate commerce. It would not have to recite the evidentiary facts upon which the government would rely at trial to support such allegation.
Neither Carbo v. United States, 314 F.2d 718 (9th Cir. 1963), nor United States v. Diecidue, 603 F.2d 535 (5th Cir. 1979), cert. denied, 445 U.S. 946, 100 S.Ct. 1345, 63 L.Ed.2d 781 (1980), are to the contrary.
In Carbo the challenged counts were numbers one and five, the former charging “a conspiracy to commit extortion” and the latter “a conspiracy to transmit threats by means of interstate commerce.” 314 F.2d at 730-31. Both counts alleged that the conspiracy was, by the use of threats, “to obtain monies representing a share of the purses earned by a professional prize fighter then engaged in championship matches being nationally televised, to wit, Donald Jordan” and that this purpose would also be effected through the machinations of a named “major promoter of nationally televised prize fights.” Id. at 730-31 nn. 4 & 5 (emphasis added). It was claimed that these counts did “not allege how interstate commerce was to be delayed, obstructed or affected by the charged conspiracy.” Id. at 732. The Ninth Circuit rejected this, stating “[i]t is not necessary to plead such evidentiary detail.” Id. at 733. For this proposition it cited only Wong Tai v. United States, 273 U.S. 77, 47 S.Ct. 300, 71 L.Ed. 545 (1927), thus plainly showing its reliance on the rule that in a conspiracy indictment the offense which is the object of the conspiracy need only be adequately identified, it being unnecessary to fully allege each element of such offense as it would be if it were the crime directly charged.2 Of *512course, here we are not dealing with a conspiracy charge. Moreover, in Carbo the indictment did identify the interstate commerce nexus — namely, proceeds from nationally televised championship prizefights of a named prizefighter and the business activities of a named major promoter of nationally televised fights. If the indictment here had given even a fraction as much identification of the interstate commerce nexus as did the Carbo indictment, there would be no occasion for this dissent.
Diecidue was a prosecution under 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c), as to which there is no requirement that defendant’s wrongful activity (a pattern of racketeering activity or unlawful debt collection) in any manner, directly or indirectly, actually affect interstate commerce; it is enough that such activity constitute participation in the conduct of the affairs of an “enterprise,” provided the enterprise is engaged in or affects interstate or foreign commerce. Here, prosecution is under the first clause of the Hobbs Act, which does require that defendant’s wrongful activity (extortion) obstruct, delay or affect commerce. Arguably, then, “commerce” in a § 1962(c) prosecution is, like the offense which is the object of a conspiracy in a conspiracy charge, not so much “the gist of the crime” as it is in a prosecution under the first clause of the Hobbs Act, and hence may properly be alleged with greater generality. Diecidue cites Carbo in support of its holding, and, as we have seen, Carbo relies on the special rule of Wong Tai concerning allegations of the object offense in conspiracy indictments.
Be that as it may, however, the indictment in Diecidue was plainly not subject to the deficiencies present here. In Diecidue the indictment identified the enterprise (the several defendants being members of it) and alleged that it engaged in and that its activities affected interstate commerce; it also alleged that the defendants participated in the conduct of the enterprise’s affairs through a specified pattern of racketeering activity. While it did not allege defendants’ referenced racketeering activity affected interstate commerce, that (as above pointed out) is not any part of the offense denounced by § 1962(c). Accordingly, the indictment here would be comparable to that in Diecidue if, for example, it had alleged that the contractor’s business with the School Board involved or affected interstate commerce. But the indictment contains no such allegation.
The majority points out that prior to trial the appellant was, through the government’s voluntary disclosure, made aware of its theory of the case, including the nature of the interstate commerce nexus, and that the indictment adequately protects against double jeopardy. These are not the only functions of an indictment, however. A sufficient indictment is also necessary under the Fifth Amendment “to assure the defendant that a grand jury properly determined probable cause of the offense.” United States v. Outler, 659 F.2d 1306, 1311 (5th Cir. 1981), cert. denied,-U.S.-, 102 S.Ct. 1453, 71 L.Ed.2d 665 (1982). This requirement is normally satisfied by an indictment which alleges each element of the offense. However, if the allegation of a given element is purely in terms of a generic and wholly abstract legal conclusion, then it affords virtually no assurance that the grand jury has properly determined probable cause. Here we have simply no idea whatever of the general subject matter which the grand jury considered as constituting the interstate commerce involved.
This dissent makes no plea for a technical construction of indictments or for a requirement that they set forth the evidentiary facts which the government will prove at trial to establish the several elements of the offense. But to avoid one extreme it should not be necessary to embrace another. *513Surely we can require that an element be set forth more specifically than in terms of a generic and abstract legal conclusion without at the same time requiring any recitation of evidentiary detail. Indeed, that is the spirit of the provision that an indictment “shall be a plain, concise and definite written statement of the essential facts constituting the offense charged.” Rule 7(c)(1) F.R.CR.P. (emphasis added). While doubtless a much greater level of generality is permissible where other aspects of the indictment afford protection against double jeopardy and notice to the accused is not in issue, nevertheless, even in such instances there must be some limit beyond which excessive and virtually meaningless generality will not be allowed to totally substitute for any factually informative identification of the elements of the offense. Otherwise, the indictment will not afford any significant degree of assurance that the grand jury found probable cause for each element of the particular offense charged. Believing the case at bar to be one of those rare instances where this limit has been clearly transgressed, I respectfully dissent.

. The indictment was in three counts. Appellant was sentenced to eighteen months’ imprisonment on count one; on counts two and three he was given a concurrent sentence of four years’ probation commencing on his release from confinement under count one. On appeal no challenge is made to count three, and appellant concedes it is sufficient and that since the *511sentence on count two is concurrent with that on count three only count one remains in issue. Consequently, this opinion will concern itself only with count one.

. Wong Tai states:
“It is well settled that in an indictment for conspiring to commit an offense — in which the conspiracy is the gist of the crime — it is not necessary to allege with technical precision all the elements essential to the commission of the offense which is the object of the *512conspiracy ... or to state such object with the detail which would be required in an indictment for committing the substantive offense .... In charging such a conspiracy ‘certainty to a common intent, sufficient to identify the offense which the defendants conspired to commit, is all that is necessary.’” 273 U.S. at 81, 47 S.Ct. at 301, 71 L.Ed. at 548 (citations omitted).