United States v. O'Grady

Summary

The en banc Second Circuit held that extortion under color of official right under the Hobbs Act requires proof that a public official wrongfully used his office to induce the giving of benefits. Mere acceptance of unsolicited benefits, even with knowledge that they were given because of the official's position, was insufficient. The court vacated the panel decision, reversed Edward O'Grady's conviction because of plain error in the jury instruction, and remanded for a new trial.

Holdings

1. Yes. Extortion under color of official right requires proof that the public official wrongfully used his office to induce or obtain benefits not due to him or his office; mere acceptance of unsolicited benefits with knowledge that the benefits were motivated by the official's position is insufficient.
2. No. The government need not prove a demand, direct solicitation, force, fear, or specific quid pro quo, but it must prove some misuse of public office that induced the benefits.
3. Yes. The jury instruction was plainly erroneous because it permitted conviction without a finding that O'Grady misused his office to induce or obtain the benefits.

Questions Presented

1. Whether extortion under color of official right under the Hobbs Act requires proof that the public official wrongfully used his office to induce or obtain the benefits.
2. Whether the district court committed reversible plain error by instructing the jury that it could convict based on the official's mere acceptance of benefits, knowledge that the benefits were motivated by his office, and the absence of proof that he requested, demanded, or solicited them.
3. Whether the Second Circuit should abandon or overrule its prior broad interpretation of Hobbs Act extortion under color of official right.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded