The U.S. Supreme Court is in session and is hearing oral argument in Ohio v. Clark, regarding whether the Confrontation Clause allows a teacher to testify as to what a preschool child said about who abused him. CJLF's brief is here. My post at the time of filing is here.
The Court also released its orders list from last Friday's conference. It took up a case on the interpretation of the federal extortion law. The Question Presented follows the break.
The Court also released its orders list from last Friday's conference. It took up a case on the interpretation of the federal extortion law. The Question Presented follows the break.
QP in Ocasio v. United States, No. 14-361:
QUESTION PRESENTED:
The Hobbs Act defines extortion, in relevant part, as "the obtaining of property from
another, with his consent, ... under color of official right." 18 U.S.C. ยง 1951(b)(2). This Court
has held that a public official violates that statute when he "obtain[s] a payment to which he
was not entitled, knowing that the payment was made in return for official acts." Evans v.
United States, 504 U.S. 255, 268 (1992).
The question presented, on which the Fourth and Sixth Circuits explicitly disagree, is:
Does a conspiracy to commit extortion require that the conspirators agree to obtain
property from someone outside the conspiracy?
Leave a comment