United States v. John Bencivengo
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 7599
| 3rd Cir. | 2014Background
- John Bencivengo, Mayor of Hamilton Township, NJ, accepted $5,000 from insurance broker Marliese Ljuba in 2011 while she sought to avoid competitive bidding for the School District’s insurance contract.
- Ljuba and Bencivengo agreed the payment was in exchange for Bencivengo using his political influence with School Board members (noting he had no formal authority over the Board).
- The payment was arranged to appear like gambling winnings; Ljuba cooperated with the FBI and recorded conversations.
- Bencivengo was indicted and convicted of Hobbs Act extortion (18 U.S.C. §1951) and Travel Act violations (18 U.S.C. §1952) premised on New Jersey bribery law, and also convicted of related money‑laundering (not appealed).
- At trial the district court adopted the government’s jury instructions (which treated an official’s agreement to exercise influence, or the payor’s reasonable belief in such influence, as sufficient under the Hobbs Act).
- On appeal the Third Circuit affirmed, holding influence (even without de jure power) can satisfy Hobbs Act extortion where the payor reasonably believes the official can exert influence; Travel Act conviction likewise sustained; double jeopardy and judicial‑conduct claims rejected.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Hobbs Act sufficiency ("under color of official right") | Gov: influence or payor’s reasonable belief suffices to show extortion under color of official right | Bencivengo: as Mayor he had no official authority over the School Board; Ljuba didn’t believe he had "effective power" to decide the contract | Affirmed: an official’s agreement to wield influence — or a payor’s reasonable belief in that influence — is enough for Hobbs Act liability even without de jure/de facto decisionmaking power |
| Jury instructions (plain‑error) | Gov: proposed instructions correctly stated law that influence or reasonable belief suffices | Bencivengo: did not object at trial (but later argued instructions were erroneous) | No plain error: unopposed instructions tracked circuit/sister‑circuit precedent and were supported by the record |
| Travel Act predicate ("performing a governmental function") | Gov: NJ bribery statute applies; lack of actual jurisdiction isn’t a defense | Bencivengo: not performing a governmental function when pressuring the School Board; lacked authority | Affirmed: NJ statute covers attempts to influence even where actor lacks actual authority; Travel Act conviction stands |
| Double jeopardy (multiplicity of Hobbs Act + Travel Act) | Bencivengo: convictions duplicate same conduct | Gov: statutes require different elements (interstate travel/facility use v. effect on commerce) | No plain error: Blockburger test satisfied; courts have upheld convictions under both statutes for same conduct |
| Trial judge conduct | Bencivengo: judge’s interruptions and criticisms prejudiced jury | Gov: judge’s comments were courtroom management; curative instructions given | No reversible error: judge did not cross into advocacy; admonitions and instructions mitigated concern; evidence was overwhelming |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Mazzei, 521 F.2d 639 (3d Cir. 1975) (en banc) (official’s exploited public‑office influence can satisfy Hobbs Act even without de jure authority)
- United States v. Loftus, 992 F.2d 793 (8th Cir. 1993) (agreement to use influence sufficient for Hobbs Act conviction where official lacked direct authority)
- United States v. D'Amico, 496 F.3d 95 (1st Cir. 2007) (use of official influence, not formal power, can ground bribery/extortion conviction)
- United States v. Bibby, 752 F.2d 1116 (6th Cir. 1985) (public‑office connections and contacts can create reasonable belief in ability to influence official outcomes)
- United States v. Manzo, 636 F.3d 56 (3d Cir. 2011) (misuse of public office supplies coercion element for Hobbs Act color‑of‑official‑right theory)