United States v. Turner
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 14204
| 1st Cir. | 2012Background
- Turner, a Boston City Council member, was convicted of one count of attempted extortion under color of official right under the Hobbs Act and three counts of making false statements to FBI agents.
- The scheme involved Wilburn, cooperating with the FBI, paying Turner’s ally Wilkerson and Turner to influence liquor license decisions for a Roxbury supper club.
- Turner accepted $1,000 on August 3, 2007, and later agreed to cancel a city council hearing in exchange for favorable licensing outcomes.
- The government charged Turner with related offenses based on his conduct and statements during and after the August 2007 interaction.
- Turner challenged his conviction on issues including reciprocal/quid pro quo elements, evidence admissibility, closing argument, and sentencing, arguing vindictiveness in the sentence.
- The First Circuit affirmed Turner’s convictions and sentence, denying his requests for a new trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reciprocity element instruction adequate? | Turner argues the court’s reciprocity instructions were plain error and misled the jury. | Turner contends the instructions could permit conviction without explicit/implicit reciprocity. | No plain error; instructions adequately conveyed reciprocity. |
| Sufficiency of evidence on reciprocity? | Wilburn’s statements show only a gratuity, not reciprocity. | There was evidence of implicit exchange beyond a gratuity. | Evidence sufficient to support reciprocity. |
| Interstate commerce element instruction sufficiency? | Instruction may have allowed minimal nexus to interstate commerce without requiring actual interference. | Instructions required nexus and potential impact on interstate commerce. | No error; nexus instruction proper and supported by evidence. |
| Evidentiary/closing-argument issues and sentencing vindictiveness? | Certain evidentiary rulings and prosecutor’s closing were improper; sentencing bore vindictive considerations. | Any evidentiary errors were harmless; sentence within guidelines and not vindictively motivated. | No reversible error; sentence upheld; no prosecutorial vindictiveness found. |
Key Cases Cited
- Evans v. United States, 504 U.S. 255 (1992) (requires proof of payment made in return for official acts; implicit reciprocity acceptable in non-campaign context)
- Cruz-Arroyo v. United States, 461 F.3d 69 (1st Cir. 2006) (reciprocity/quid pro quo element can be implied from words and actions)
- Rivera-Rangel v. United States, 396 F.3d 476 (1st Cir. 2005) (reciprocity standard in extortion under color of official right)
- Ganim v. United States, 510 F.3d 134 (2d Cir. 2007) (implied quid pro quo in non-campaign contexts allowed where supported by evidence)
- McKenna v. United States, 889 F.2d 1168 (1st Cir. 1989) (home-rule petitions and liquor-license-related extortion context)
- Capozzi v. United States, 347 F.3d 327 (1st Cir. 2003) (de minimis effect on interstate commerce standard)
- Brennick v. United States, 405 F.3d 96 (1st Cir. 2005) (minimal effect on interstate commerce standard)
- Butt v. United States, 955 F.2d 77 (1st Cir. 1992) (jurisdictional element requiring minimal impact on interstate commerce)