United States v. Marion Michael O'Steen

133 F.4th 1200 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · April 4, 2025 · No. 22-13569

Summary

This Eleventh Circuit opinion reviews the conviction of defense attorney Marion Michael O’Steen for Hobbs Act extortion and failure to file currency reports following a bribery scheme involving Florida State Attorney Jeffrey Siegmeister. The court addresses whether Count Three of the indictment was duplicitous under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 8(a) and whether the district court properly admitted evidence of O’Steen’s alleged Florida Bar ethical violations under Rule 403. Concluding that the duplicity in Count Three created constitutional risks regarding jury unanimity and double jeopardy, the appellate court reverses the conviction on that count.

Court
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Writing for the Court
TJOFLAT; JORDAN; LAGOA
Jurisdiction
United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Decision date
April 4, 2025
Docket number
22-13569
Procedural posture
Appeal from United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, D.C. Docket No. 3:21-cr-00016-MMH-JBT-2
Standard of review
plain error; de novo sufficiency of the evidence
Precedential value
published
Parties
Marion Michael O'Steen v. United States
Disposition
reversed

Topics

criminal procedureappellate procedurestandard of reviewevidenceappellate jurisdiction

Practice areas

criminal procedure

Questions Presented

  1. Whether a private attorney can be convicted as a principal of extortion under color of official right under the Hobbs Act.
  2. Whether the government must prove that the defendant knowingly violated the 15‑day filing requirement of Form 8300 for a conviction under 31 U.S.C. §§ 5311 & 5322.

Holdings

  1. A private person cannot be convicted as a principal of extortion under color of official right; the conviction on Count Three is reversed.
  2. The conviction on Count Four is reversed because the government failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that O'Steen knowingly violated the 15‑day filing requirement.

Key quotations

We therefore conclude that the circumstantial evidence was insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that O’Steen knew of the reporting requirement by September 7, 2018, but failed to comply with it by that date as alleged in Count Four. (at 31)
The district court’s Instruction No. 19 invited the jury to find O’Steen guilty on Count Three if the Government proved beyond a reasonable doubt that he obtained Tong’s property through extortion under color of official right. (at 35)

Factual background

Marion Michael O'Steen, a criminal defense attorney, allegedly demanded $60,000 from client Andy Tong to influence a criminal case, receiving the money that was actually provided by the FBI. He also failed to file a required Form 8300 within 15 days of receiving the cash.

Procedural history

The district court convicted O'Steen on Count Three (extortion and aiding and abetting) and Count Four (failure to file Form 8300). O'Steen appealed, arguing lack of statutory element for extortion and lack of knowledge for the reporting requirement.

Remand instructions

Enter a judgment of acquittal for Marion Michael O'Steen on Counts Three and Four.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…