United States v. Paul Dexter Harris
916 F.3d 948
11th Cir.2019Background
- Paul Harris, a corrections officer at Autry State Prison, discovered inmates operating a phone scam using Green Dot MoneyPak numbers and during cell shakedowns seized some numbers instead of reporting them.
- Harris loaded 29 MoneyPak numbers onto his Green Dot cards in 2013, often purchased from locations across the country where he had not traveled; his Green Dot activity prompted an FBI investigation.
- Harris confessed to investigators that he took the numbers from inmates and used them for personal benefit, characterizing his conduct as "Robin-Hood[ing]" the inmates.
- A grand jury indicted Harris for Hobbs Act extortion, 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a), (b)(2), alleging two alternative theories: wrongful use of actual or threatened force/fear and under color of official right.
- At his second trial the district court barred argument that he committed theft (an uncharged offense) instead of extortion, though it allowed argument that the government had not proven extortion; a jury convicted him on both extortion theories and he was sentenced to 12 months and one day.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Government) | Defendant's Argument (Harris) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence that inmates "consented" to Harris taking Green Dot numbers | Evidence (Harris’s confession; inmates’ failure to report; prison policies) shows inmates grudgingly consented (feared reporting themselves) — consent under Hobbs Act does not require voluntariness | Inmates could not consent because shakedowns were nonconsensual and they had no real choice to refuse | Conviction affirmed: sufficient circumstantial evidence supported that inmates consented (grudgingly/under compulsion short of robbery) |
| Sufficiency of evidence that Harris used a requisite means of extortion (wrongful use of fear / under color of official right) | Reputation, conduct during shakedowns, inmates’ fear of discipline and retaliation, and Harris’s intent to exploit fear support wrongful-use-of-fear theory (alternative theory unnecessary to resolve) | Argued government failed to prove Harris intended to exploit inmates’ fear or that fear induced consent | Conviction affirmed: reasonable jury could find inmates were fearful and Harris intended to exploit that fear to obtain property |
| Whether district court’s limitation on closing argument violated right to present a complete defense | Excluding argument that Harris should have been charged with theft avoided confusing the jury; defendant could still argue the government failed to prove extortion | Argued exclusion prevented him from presenting the full defense by forbidding comparison to theft | No constitutional error or abuse of discretion: court allowed essence of defense (challenge to proof of extortion) but properly prevented argument that jury choose between charged and uncharged offense |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Gonzalez, 834 F.3d 1206 (11th Cir.) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
- United States v. Bornscheuer, 563 F.3d 1228 (11th Cir.) (elements of Hobbs Act extortion)
- Evans v. United States, 504 U.S. 255 (Sup. Ct.) (historical understanding of extortion and "under color of official right")
- Ocasio v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1423 (Sup. Ct.) (meaning of "with his consent" in the Hobbs Act)
- Sekhar v. United States, 570 U.S. 729 (Sup. Ct.) ("obtaining" requires acquisition, not just deprivation)
- United States v. Watts, 896 F.3d 1245 (11th Cir.) (jury may choose among reasonable inferences)