United States v. John J. Sweeney
262 F.2d 272
3rd Cir.
1959
Check Treatment

*3 appellee. complied trucks if for the demand was not following 10, 1955, with. On October MARIS, Before GOODRICH and Sweeney Wray a demand from at- Judges. KALODNER, Circuit meeting Wray hall, tend the union at went, accompanied a man named Lom- bardo, Manager GOODRICH, Judge. General Traffic of Johns Circuit company lawyer. Trucks and the Dur- appeal This is an from a conviction ing meeting this the defendant entered Act, under the Hobbs 18 U.S.C. § Wray and kill threatened to but evident- counts, There two were both ly steps accomplish no end. charging extortion; defendant was meeting any- adjourned This guilty found on both. There is un- thing being But later in settled. problem regard solved to interstate day, meeting Pittsburgh hotel, at at companies against commerce for representing Livengood, Mr. the Johns whom the extortion was found have Company, Kegel, Fagan and Messrs. practiced engaged been trucking. are in interstate Garfold, representing Union, reached agreement regarding unloading The statute makes it an offense to ob- brought Pittsburgh the trucks into the struct, delay or affect commerce “rob- By agreement Wray area. bery or 1951(a). extortion”. 18 U.S.C. § become a member the local union and “obtaining Extortion is then defined as regional the terms of the affect- contract property another, of sent, with his con- ing employers and truck were drivers by wrongful use of actual be followed. force, violence, or threatened or fear ** 1951(b) (2). *.” 18 point chronology U.S.C. De- critical says presented fendant that the facts do comes next. theAt conclusion of the satisfactorily not establish a violation of the statute. ended conference at Taking hotel, Wray, Livengood view of the evidence fa- most counsellor Government, vorable to the must others to the lot where went Johns and States, 1942, Glasser v. Nedley, 315 U.S. United States v. S.Ct. only fear but economic loss Exit went. trucks came Sweeney physical injury as well. the lot was blocked According there. charged conditions substituted got trucking money paid com making had been those which way just panies But described. The condi- the conference. reached at settled under the statute it imposed onerous were tions thus though offense even committed employer. selected the to the get doing extorting person does not unloading. In- man who was to do the Green, money. paying rate $17.80 him the stead of *4 522, 1956, 415, 418-420, 350 76 S.Ct. U.S. agreed day he was at the conference as 494; Kemble, States v. United wholly every paid truck to be $17.80 889, The 890. con 3 198 partially There was also unloaded. of is that clusion on branch the this case by payment welfare fund evidence to of is make out there sufficient evidence to expensive Sweeney imposed more case of under the statute. extortion management confer- on than the terms appellant question agreed The raises the upon. ence had charge sufficiency judge’s of the the long series of shows subject on the of intent. It is to be Sweeney prior by threats of violence as noted that the end of the trial and at thus described. also the ultimatum the was about to be submitted to by acts series of violent shows a jury, judge trial asked counsel forcing version his anything for each there was if side Thus, imposed. when the man terms charge. The either added wanted unloading selected do the trial cate counsel for defendant George (one Nicholas), available not gorically not. The there was stated that paid Nicholas be insisted that therefore, open, point, unless the is not and used violence and of violence threats produce omission is so serious as to on an union member as alter- unjust chosen result.2 nate to Nicholas. as case must But inasmuch rea sufficiently be reversed for a new trial for the This evidence shows necessary below, sons employers stated it money an extortion of from court, point. On rule on this retrial the extor shows it charging jury extortion, on by tion violence and established both covering should, in when the element of 1951(b) threats of violence. 18 U.S.C. § opinions tent, keep mind the (2) (1951). The violence directed Kemble, 1952, trucking in United v. Court Wray employees. and other 316, 320-321, 197 F.2d and United States payments resulted threats 1958, Nedley, Payment, solely 255 by F.2d 350. Both violence. wrongful offenses, loss, larceny-type use of fear of economic cases involved is as defined in under the statute. v. which extortion the Hobbs sufficient Bianchi 23 States, 1955, Cir., also 8 Act is one.1 See Morissette v. States, Stirone, U.S. 72 S. United States v. 240, 96 L.Ed. 288. Here, Ct. 1958, 262 F.2d 571. there was copied 30, 52(b), 18 this bill are from the York 2. Fed.R.Crim.P. U.S.C. New substantially.” Cong.Rec. Code carefully points Nedley out the def New York Under the definition of the substantive offenses under was, inition criminal of extortion intent at the incorporation Act wore derived from tile Hobbs time its into the federal Code, Law, York statute, New N.Y.Penal McKin an essential element of Consol.Laws, ney’s g., People Weinseimer, 850. 255 e. F. e. crime. See App.Div. page Dept., In the House at debate 1st 102 N.Y. 2d Representative Ilobbs, bill, 579, 588, opinion affirmed on the its S. 1907, sponsor, “the N.E. stated that definitions in N.Y. although bearing suggested, by defendant, not extortion as is clearly argued defendant, by on whether was induced fear. consent Sweeney’s was not forbid here conduct At the trial the defendant exempt den because it is act epi- stand. He or all of the denied activity.4 need de lawful We not labor charged against him. sodes On cross-ex- em cide in ployee how far concerted this case amination he asked whether he through union, activity ac used ever force or violence truck thereof, companied by violence or threats drivers. He answered that he did exempted The reason act. specific imagined recall instances but do not need meet this he had fair share. Then his do find evidence in that here we he was asked he whether knew of a Mr. activity. Sweeney’s union conduct of Huffman, a Mr. Strunk and a Mr. Wil- Pittsburgh hotel, The conference involving son recall incidents could by rep described, was conducted above them. He said did not he know them representa the union and resentatives of suggest- nor recall could incidents employer. tives of An question. ed *5 was, There so far as we reached. Then in rebuttal the Government know, nor no violence threats of violence these called three men. Strunk that said meeting. activi amicable at that The Sweeney day on struck him a named Sweeney ties prompted seem have been self- of to might with what been have a tire iron. according testimony. to the Sweeney Huffman said he and had that ignored He reached and the fight picnic. had aat Wilson related by the em forced another violence on one Sweeney incident where called ployer. head of was not the him names and had threatened hit to merely union, the he was a steward him. no au so far as record shows had the nothing These men do three to thority proc part in of the whatever companies Sweeney’s with the in involved bargaining union and of between the ess management. alleged Their extortion. evidence was logically show to that relevant part the case Now we come to the of acquaintance lied about his with them necessity the of reversal which concerns person unworthy hence was a of be- grant of a new trial. the lief. But whether in- already in volved the has stated incidents related been these It purely of violence and witnesses was collateral that instances the to Sweeney’s guilt part on of main of threats of the or in- violence against charge. employees nocence of the extortion is defendant of testimony. true, doubt, may that a were shown witness severely of violence known be cross-examined in Violence and threats an effort company place telling officialstook before to determine whether he is McCormick, Evidence, 19-20, of 10th. the occurrences October Vi truth. §§ Sweeney’s part (1954); Wigmore, place af 22 3 olence on 944 Evidence § (3d 1940). true, of these ed. is ter October 10th. Evidence likewise as said, have relevant to the of we when a establishment that acts defendant unions, exemption Act, of certain labor union 4. The Norris-LaGuardia coverage National Labor of the act Relations activities Act and the Railway places. respectively. in two Section Labor Act be found can In ad- dition, 1951(b) (2) (c) “this section section shall states defines extor- repeal, modify obtaining property “the of or affect tion as construed be consent, another, of sections 101- with his Title section wrongful of Title 29 or sections use of actual or 151-166 threatened * * force, violence, 45.” The references Title fear of 151-188 organiza- exemption of of labor effect to the statute labor are union ac- laws, tivity anti-trust a restric- is discussed in tions from United States Kemble, injunctive against relief labor of F.2d tion may he would saved it. stand such limitation criminal takes have overbearing Sweeney may witness well be an as other be cross-examined Lowe, temper. may citizen But if be. United States short Wigmore, 922. 3 is to § convicted under the Hobbs Act be gen- Act, it must be offenses But also an established under it is general propensity cross- not because a witness rule that when eral discrediting regret battery. purpose of commit assault and for the With examined veracity specific by proof acts think the error the admission his subject testimony highly prejudi- convic- of of a was so misconduct not the judgment answer cial that we tion, take his reverse examiner must must bring given and remand the case for a new and is free trial. it is an- proof independent to show n. 42 at McCormick Judge untrue. KALODNER, swer was (concur- Circuit Wigmore ring) §§ . cutting majority’s off re- I am in purpose accord with the rule dis- type position. I cross-ex- would also reverse on the on this buttal ground judge of is- that the failure confusion the trial avoid amination give adequate jury prejudice to defendant. instructions to the undue sues (he gave none) scope on the score of “intent” cross-examination While concerning prejudicial prior mis- constituted basic and error. the witness is, subject of conviction conduct not administration, sound within in its *6 judge, same trial discretion applicable rebuttal principle testimony inadmissible.5 which Klass, Cir., States United v. Sager, v. United States Cir., 730. Further, prohibits the the rule COMPANY, CARBORUNDUM pro- showing is for the of other crimes Plaintiff-Appellant, say is, we of a defendant. tection v. slip elsewhere,6 easy trial particular COMPANY, the NATIONAL TEA offense to for a Defendant- man Appellee. generally. If the character trial No. 12286. testimony offenses does other given propensity to commit show

than Appeals States Court of point admit This it. it is error to crime Seventh Circuit. in United States discussed Dec. 1958. Stirone, need not be discussion and that repeated here.7 re- is that the in this The trouble tending prove testimony, while

buttal Sweeney lied, show also tended to man full of violent bad he was a very close of It came deeds. limited trial was not case. way, assuming charge court’s Stone, depends See Ibid. Rule of error Exclusion reversible Whether America, Similar Pact Evidence: the admission whether 52(a). Harv.L.Rev. 988 prejudicial. Fed.R.Crim.P. Stirone, F.2d 571.