SAMUEL OCASIO v. UNITED STATES
Supreme Court of the United States, Alito, Filed May 2, 2016,
Conspiracy – Hobbs Act – “a defendant may be convicted of conspiring to violate the Hobbs Act based on proof that he entered into a conspiracy that had as its objective the obtaining of property from another conspirator with his consent and under color of official right.”
(Concur – Breyer – Evans was probably wrongly decided, but stare decisis)
(Dissent – Thomas – Evans was wrongly decided)
(Dissent – Sotomayor with CJ Roberts – Evans was wrongly decided, and we shouldn’t expand its reach)
At 5-1-3, Breyer’s decision to both join and concur kept this from being a plurality decision and keeps Evans not only alive but kicking.
The opinion is interesting in that its holding is that while participation in a criminal act that calls for multiple participants is not of necessity a conspiracy, it can become one depending on the level of participation of those involved. Under what circumstances could a standard buyer/seller drug transaction elevate to a conspiracy charge? Illegal firearm sales?
Hobbs Act – 18 USC 1951 – Extortion with consent and under color of official right was described by the Court in Evans as the “rough equivalent of taking a bribe”
Hobbs Act – 18 USC 1951 – Extortion with consent and under color of official right – the Government “need only show that a public official has obtained a payment to which he was not entitled, knowing that the payment was made in return for official acts.”
Hobbs Act – 18 USC 1951 – Extortion with consent and under color of official right – The “consent” required to pay a bribe does not necessarily create a conspiratorial agreement. In cases where the bribe payor is merely complying with an official demand, the payor lacks the mens rea necessary for a conspiracy.
Conspiracy – A conspirator need not agree to commit “each and every part of the substantive offense.” A defendant must merely reach an agreement with the “specific intent that the underlying crime be committed” by some member of the conspiracy.
Conspiracy – when that person’s consent or acquiescence is inherent in the underlying substantive offense, something more than bare consent or acquiescence may be needed to prove that the person was a conspirator.