United States v. Greer
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 7063
| 9th Cir. | 2011Background
- Greer discovered confidential casino client documents left in his trailer during a trucking run for French Trucking.
- Greer contacted Harrah's and MGM/Mirage demanding money by threatening to disclose the information.
- Harrah's and FBI agents undercover arranged a recorded, fake security contract to catch Greer in a transaction.
- Greer accepted a $250,000 check at a staged meeting, was arrested, and admitted to capitalizing on the information.
- Greer was convicted of extortion and racketeering (two counts each) but acquitted on wire fraud; he appealed on jury instructions and cross-examination questions.
- The district court's extortion instructions and the government’s cross-examination conduct were challenged under the plain error standard.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the jury instructions misstate mens rea for extortion? | Greer contends a 'knowingly' instruction conflicted with a specific intent to violate the law. | Greer argues the general instruction negates the extortion-specific intent element. | No plain error; instructions as a whole satisfied Sturm and did not conflict. |
| Do the instructions improperly permit ignorance of unlawfulness to excuse guilt? | Greer asserts the 'knowingly' instruction conflicts with the extortion element requiring knowledge of illegality. | Greer asserts the general instruction should not override the specific intent to not be entitled to receive money. | Not plain error; general knowingly instruction addressed knowledge of unlawful activity, distinct from entitlement. |
| Was cross-examination improperly inviting Greer to comment on witnesses' veracity? | Greer argues the prosecutor improperly pressed him to label witnesses as lying. | Greer contends the line of questioning was improper and biased the jury. | Not plain error; the questioning was not clearly improper under controlling authority. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Sturm, 870 F.2d 769 (1st Cir. 1989) (expounds 'wrongful' requires knowledge of non entitlement; not binding as to knowledge of unlawfulness)
- United States v. Turman, 122 F.3d 1167 (9th Cir. 1997) (no plain error where circuit law unsettled; two-step knowledge interplay)
- United States v. Stein, 37 F.3d 1407 (9th Cir. 1994) (distinguishes knowledge of predicate unlawful acts from secondary acts; conflict if overlap)
- United States v. Gravenmeir, 121 F.3d 526 (9th Cir. 1997) (conflict analysis when general knowledge instruction and specific act instruction interplay)
- United States v. Dischner, 974 F.2d 1502 (9th Cir. 1992) (considered whether Sturm-like reasoning applies when not yet settled)