United States v. Villalobos - 748 F.3d 953 (9th Cir. 2014)

Rule:

Where a nonviolent threat to obtain property is not, by its nature, inherently wrongful, a court must first consider whether the threat, as actually used in the case at issue, the means, is wrongful, without regard to the property demanded by the defendant, the ends. If a nonviolent threat is wrongful under the circumstances, then it is sufficient to sustain a conviction for extortion or attempted extortion. In such situations, a court need not consider whether the defendant has a lawful claim to the property demanded. That approach is consistent with the Daane decision, which recognized that certain means to obtain property are wrongful under the Hobbs Act without regard to the ends sought by the defendant. A similar means-ends framework was adopted by the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in the Sturm decision.

Facts:

Orit Anjel (Orit) came to the United States, allegedly as a religious worker at the Los Angeles Chabad Israel Center (Center). In 2009, Orit received a letter from Rabbi Yemeni terminating her work at the Center. When Orit was terminated, Orit’s husband engaged Defendant-Appellant Alfred Nash Villalobos, a lawyer, to help him recoup the money he had paid to Rabbi Yemeni, a person who was helping Israeli nationals to obtain visas in the United States under the pretext that they were religious workers at the Center. Villalobos was charged with attempted extortion in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a), and endeavoring to obstruct justice, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1503(a). According to the government, Villalobos was attempting to extort Rabbi Yemeni, and that in return for payment, Villalobos promised that Orit would do whatever it was needed, including impeding the investigation, lying to investigating Assistant U.S. Attorney Keri Axel (Axel), and repeating those lies to the grand jury. Villalobos was convicted. On appeal, Villalobos claimed that the district court erred in instructing the jury that all threats to testify or provide information were "wrongful" under the Hobbs Act if made with the intent to induce or take advantage of fear, and in precluding a claim of right defense to the attempted extortion charge.

Issue:

1. Could non-violent threats outside the labor context be wrongful under the Hobbs Act?
2. Absent the jury instructions, could the defendant still be convicted for the crime charged?

Answer:

1) No. 2) Yes.

Conclusion:

The Court held that the district court's jury instruction — that threats to testify or provide information were "wrongful" under the Hobbs Act if made with the intent to induce or take advantage of fear — was erroneous because it would necessarily lead a jury to conclude that all threats are wrongful. The Court concluded, however, that the error was harmless because any rational jury would have found the defendant guilty, absent the erroneous instruction, since the "means" the defendant employed to obtain property — threats to have his client cooperate with, or alternatively, impede an ongoing criminal investigation into the Director of the Los Angeles Chabad Israel Center's visa-procurement scheme, contingent on payment — were unlawful and therefore clearly wrongful under the circumstances.