712 F.3d 805
3rd Cir.2013Background
- Indictment in Oct 2009 charged Manzo with six counts: four conspiracy/attempted extortion under Hobbs Act and two Travel Act bribery counts.
- District Court dismissed Hobbs Act counts, ruling Manzo was not acting “under color of official right” as a candidate.
- Travel Act charges remained; the court read New Jersey bribery statute broadly to cover non-officeholders.
- Government appealed the Hobbs Act dismissal; Third Circuit affirmed the Hobbs Act dismissal on interlocutory review, remanding.
- Subsequently, the District Court, on reconsideration, dismissed Travel Act charges as not qualifying under New Jersey bribery law, and all charges were dismissed.
- Manzo then filed a pro se Hyde Amendment motion for attorney fees and expenses, which the District Court denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Hyde Amendment fee shifting requires prosecutorial misconduct? | Manzo claims prosecutorial misconduct under Hyde Amendment. | Government argues standard is an objective, not mind-reading, test of vexatious/frivolous/bad faith conduct. | Abuse of discretion standard; not proven. |
| Whether continued Travel Act prosecution after Hobbs Act dismissal was vexatious/frivolous/bad faith? | Prosecution continued despite Hobbs Act ruling, indicating bad faith. | Position was objectively reasonable; not vexatious or frivolous. | Not vexatious or frivolous; reasonable belief supported by district court ruling. |
| Whether government knew allegations were false and acted in bad faith? | Government knew indictments were false based on cooperator testimony. | Recordings and facts supported plausible theories; not knowingly false. | Insufficient to show bad faith; not abuse of discretion. |
| Whether conflicts of interest and recusal considerations render the prosecution vexatious? | DOJ recusal failures due to political connections. | Objective Hyde standard governs; no demonstrated objective bad faith. | No abuse; prosecution not vexatious. |
| Whether alleged prosecutorial missteps (grand jury evidence; Jencks) amount to Hyde Amendment grounds? | Failures to present exculpatory evidence and preserve FBI instructions. | Even if true, errors are prosecutorial, not Hyde grounds; would not show vexatiousness. | Not sufficient to justify fee award. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Lain, 640 F.3d 1134 (10th Cir. 2011) ( Hyde Amendment review requires objective showing of misconduct)
- United States v. Beeks, 266 F.3d 880 (8th Cir. 2001) ( abuse of discretion standard for Hyde matters)
- United States v. Wade, 255 F.3d 833 (D.C. Cir. 2001) ( framing of vexatious/frivolous/bad faith in Hyde context)
- United States v. Gilbert, 198 F.3d 1293 (11th Cir. 1999) (frivolous vs. vexatious distinctions; allowed reasonable government arguments)