United States v. Burhoe
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 17422
| 1st Cir. | 2017Background
- Teamsters Local 82 (Boston) leaders John Perry and Joseph Burhoe were tried on a 30‑count indictment (2007–2011) charging Hobbs Act extortion of nonunion employers and fellow union members, RICO, conspiracy, and violating 29 U.S.C. § 504(a) (prohibiting certain convicted persons from serving as union representatives).
- Government theory re nonunion employers: defendants threatened pickets and other pressure to obtain paid work for union members (sometimes work performed, sometimes not); several vendors/hotels hired union members to avoid disruption.
- Government theory re union members: defendants used threats/violence and control over hiring to deprive members of LMRDA rights (voting, grievance participation) and wages/benefits (seniority/2003 Rule positions), allegedly redirecting work to friends/family.
- Trial convictions: multiple extortion counts, racketeering and conspiracy counts, and § 504(a) convictions for both defendants; lengthy jury trial and post‑trial appeals.
- First Circuit holdings summarized below: most Hobbs Act extortion and RICO/conspiracy convictions reversed for insufficiency or erroneous jury instructions; one extortion count (Four Pints) vacated and remanded for new trial; § 504(a) convictions affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether jury instructions on Hobbs Act "wrongful" element properly required proof the work was fictitious (nonunion extortion) | Gov: instructions allowed conviction for obtaining unwanted/superfluous work via threats; Hobbs Act covers such conduct | Defs: Hobbs Act shouldn’t criminalize peaceful picketing to turn around nonunion jobs at prevailing wage unless work is fictitious or personal payoff | Court: Instructions were misleading — disjunctive phrasing relieved government of proving work was fictitious; vacated/remanded count 4 and reversed other nonunion extortion convictions where only peaceful picketing/undesired work shown |
| Sufficiency to prove extortion by payoff (nonunion incidents) | Gov: some payments went to union members (friends/family), supporting payoff theory | Defs: payments were for real work or not shown to be sham; mere hiring of union members is protected labor activity | Court: Except possibly Four Pints, evidence failed to prove fictitious work or personal payoff; reversed most nonunion extortion convictions and remanded Four Pints for new trial |
| Whether alleged deprivation of LMRDA rights and wages/benefits (union‑member counts) constitute Hobbs Act "property" and were "obtained" | Gov: LMRDA rights and reduced wages/benefits are property obtained by defendants; threats induced relinquishment | Defs: Sekhar/Scheidler require property be transferable and obtained; LMRDA rights are intangible and not shown to be transferred; victims did not consent | Court: Government waived LMRDA‑property theory; wages/benefits theory failed under Scheidler and Sekhar (no proof defendants obtained transferable property or consent); convictions reversed |
| Whether § 504(a) (prohibition on certain convicted persons serving as union representatives) applies to de facto/unsanctioned representatives | Gov: §504(a) "representative in any capacity" covers informal/de facto representatives like Burhoe; sufficient evidence he acted as union representative for Perry | Defs: §504(a) should be limited to formal officeholders; government failed to prove ineligibility/that unless‑clause applies | Court: §504(a) is broad enough to cover de facto representatives; evidence sufficient that Burhoe acted as prohibited representative; convictions on Count 29 affirmed; defendants failed to show plain‑error in not treating "unless" clause as an element |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Enmons, 410 U.S. 396 (1973) (Hobbs Act "wrongful" narrowing: legitimate union objectives may fall outside extortion)
- Scheidler v. Nat'l Org. for Women, 537 U.S. 393 (2003) (Hobbs Act extortion requires the perpetrator to "obtain" property — must gain something transferable)
- United States v. Green, 350 U.S. 415 (1956) (upheld indictment charging exaction of wages for fictitious services)
- NLRB v. Gamble Enters., 345 U.S. 117 (1953) (NLRB/Supreme Court recognized unions may seek actual employment for members even if employer does not want or need services)
- United States v. Local 807 of Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters, 315 U.S. 521 (1942) (pre‑Hobbs Act case discussed in legislative history regarding the wages exception and congressional response)