## Facts

- Joseph Corrado sought to develop a manufactured-home community called Applewood Farms on about 80 acres in Camden, Delaware, and invested roughly $650,000 in the project.
- Corrado pursued local land-use approvals, including rezoning and conditional-use approvals, to permit the planned development.
- The project generated substantial community opposition focused on local impacts. Kirk Albertson became one of the most vocal opponents.
- Albertson’s opposition consisted of lawful political and legal activity, including organizing protests, distributing flyers, speaking at community meetings, engaging the press, supporting candidates opposed to the project, and participating in litigation connected to the approvals.
- After months of conflict, Albertson told Corrado he would stop opposing the project if Corrado made a $20,000 “sponsorship” donation to Albertson’s new semi-professional football team, the Dover Destroyers.
- Corrado suspected wrongdoing, contacted a former FBI agent, and recorded conversations with Albertson.
- In the recorded discussions, Albertson acknowledged he could not control elected officials’ decisions, but said he would end his own opposition efforts and would try to influence others to reduce or stop theirs if Corrado made the payment.
- The FBI became involved, and Albertson was arrested and charged in a single-count indictment with attempted extortion under the Hobbs Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1951.
- After a four-day trial, the jury returned a guilty verdict. The district court had reserved decision on Albertson’s Rule 29 motion for judgment of acquittal, and Albertson renewed the motion post-verdict (and alternatively sought a new trial).

## Issues

1. Whether a private citizen’s request for $20,000 in exchange for ending his own lawful political and legal opposition to a development project (and attempting to influence others to do the same) constitutes “wrongful” use of fear of economic loss under the Hobbs Act.
2. Whether the trial evidence was sufficient to support an attempted-extortion conviction when the feared harm was continued lawful advocacy and litigation rather than violence, other illegal conduct, or misuse of official authority.

## Decision

- The district court granted Albertson’s Rule 29 motion and entered a judgment of acquittal notwithstanding the jury’s guilty verdict.
- The court held that, as a matter of law, the government failed to prove the Hobbs Act element that the obtaining of property be induced by the “wrongful” use of fear of economic harm.
- The court reasoned that the conduct Albertson threatened—continuing to oppose the project through political activity, public speech, petitioning, and litigation—was lawful, and threatening lawful conduct in this setting was not “wrongful” within § 1951.
- Because the court entered a judgment of acquittal, Albertson’s alternative motion for a new trial was denied as moot.
- The Third Circuit affirmed the acquittal without opinion. 156 F.3d 1225 (3d Cir. 1998).

## Legal Principles

- The Hobbs Act defines extortion as obtaining (or attempting to obtain) property from another, with consent induced by force, violence, or fear, but only when the use of fear is “wrongful.” 18 U.S.C. § 1951(b)(2).
- In cases based on fear of economic loss, the “wrongful” element limits the statute’s reach; the government must show more than a victim’s concern about financial harm.
- When the threatened conduct consists of lawful political activity, petitioning, or litigation, the use of economic fear is not “wrongful” under the Hobbs Act merely because the speaker seeks money in return for stopping that lawful opposition.
- Reading “wrongful” broadly enough to criminalize payments sought to end lawful advocacy would risk converting ordinary disputes involving speech, political activity, and settlement-like proposals into federal extortion prosecutions.

## Conclusion

United States v. Albertson held that a private activist’s offer to stop lawful opposition to a proposed development in exchange for a $20,000 sponsorship did not, on these facts, satisfy the Hobbs Act requirement that fear of economic loss be used “wrongfully.” The district court therefore set aside the jury’s guilty verdict and entered a judgment of acquittal, which the Third Circuit affirmed without opinion.


United States v. Albertson, 971 F. Supp. 837 (1997), aff'd without opinion, 156 F.3d 1225 (1998)