United States v. Buffis
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 15051
| 1st Cir. | 2017Background
- Lee Police Chief Joseph Buffis publicly announced a prostitution arrest of Tom Fusco and Tara Viola, undermining a planned confidential informant arrangement and exposing them to public harm.
- Buffis offered to make the prosecution "go away" if Fusco and Viola donated proceeds from the alleged prostitution to a local charity; he drafted an "Accord & Satisfaction" demanding $4,000 and advised them not to hire a lawyer.
- Fusco wrote a $4,000 check to satisfy the agreement; the check was deposited into Buffis' personal police-affiliated "Laliberte Toy Fund," which Buffis largely spent for personal use.
- Clerk-Magistrate Bartini participated in the courtroom meeting; the charges were then continued and ultimately dismissed that day; later state investigators found no funds had gone to the charities Buffis claimed.
- A grand jury indicted Buffis on Hobbs Act extortion (18 U.S.C. § 1951(a)) and related money-laundering charges; at trial he was convicted only of extortion under color of official right and acquitted on other counts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for Hobbs Act extortion under color of official right | Govt: Buffis obtained property to which he was not entitled, knowing it was payment for official acts | Buffis: No coercion; donors were "comfortable" and donation was voluntary, so no extortion | Affirmed: evidence sufficient; payment obtained under color of official right shown |
| Whether coercion/duress is required to prove extortion under color of official right | Govt: Not required where official-right prong is proven | Buffis: Must show coercion; signed "voluntary" agreement negates coercion | Held: Duress not an element for color-of-official-right extortion; coercion unnecessary |
| Whether voluntariness or payer-initiated offer defeats extortion charge | Govt: Payer's approach or eagerness does not preclude extortion if official accepted payment for official acts | Buffis: Viola proposed donation first; that shows no inducement by Buffis | Held: Irrelevant who originated idea; official need not have induced payment |
| Whether insufficient evidence of Buffis' knowledge that payment was for official acts | Govt: Statements and course of conduct show Buffis knew payment was in exchange for dismissing charges | Buffis: Claims lack of knowledge undermines extortion finding | Held: Sufficient evidence Buffis knew the payment was for official acts |
Key Cases Cited
- Turner v. United States, 684 F.3d 244 (1st Cir. 2012) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence on appeal)
- United States v. Cruz-Arroyo, 461 F.3d 69 (1st Cir. 2006) (explains Hobbs Act sufficiency and alternatives between "fear" and "color of official right")
- Evans v. United States, 504 U.S. 255 (1992) (holding that extortion under color of official right requires obtaining payment to which official is not entitled, knowing it was made in return for official acts)
- Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States, 379 U.S. 241 (1964) (interstate commerce context for Hobbs Act impact)
- United States v. Cianci, 378 F.3d 71 (1st Cir. 2004) (de minimis effect on commerce can satisfy Hobbs Act)
- Ocasio v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1423 (2016) (discusses extortion concepts and Hobbs Act scope)
- United States v. Rivera-Medina, 845 F.2d 12 (1st Cir. 1988) (payer-initiated offer does not preclude extortion conviction)
- United States v. Hathaway, 534 F.2d 386 (1st Cir. 1976) (same principle regarding voluntariness and extortion)
- United States v. Rivera-Rangel, 396 F.3d 476 (1st Cir. 2005) (an official need not be sole actor; official power to facilitate government business suffices)
- United States v. Zannino, 895 F.2d 1 (1st Cir. 1990) (undeveloped appellate arguments are waived)