## Facts

- Robert Wilhelm Brinkman and Manuel Kane helped form Ultracept to sell an oil-water separation machine; Brinkman claimed inventor status and was to receive salary, royalties, and stock.
- After Ultracept’s financial problems and Kane’s decision to stop investing, Brinkman agreed to waive royalties until the business improved, but later demanded renewed payments.
- When Kane refused further royalties, Brinkman escalated from lawful pressure (picketing) to threats and intimidation.
- Brinkman sent Kane’s wife a funeral bouquet with a tag reading “With deepest Sympathy—Soon.”
- Brinkman allegedly pursued Kane and an associate in a high-speed chase.
- The FBI learned Brinkman sought a “hit man” and used an informant known to Brinkman as “Bob Nails” to arrange meetings.
- Nails introduced Brinkman to an undercover FBI agent; recorded conversations captured Brinkman describing a plan to have Kane beaten and identifying Kane’s office location.
- In a later exchange, the undercover agent gave Brinkman $5,000 represented as money from Kane; Brinkman returned $800 as a “collection” fee.
- Brinkman was charged with two counts under 18 U.S.C. § 894(a)(1) and one count under 18 U.S.C. § 1952; he was convicted on one § 894 count and the § 1952 count, and acquitted on the other § 894 count.
- Pretrial, a magistrate ordered disclosure of Nails’s identity; the district court reversed and later quashed a defense subpoena for Nails after finding him an active undercover operative and not a direct witness to the charged offenses.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court abused its discretion under the informant’s privilege by refusing to compel disclosure of the informant’s identity and by quashing a subpoena for the informant’s testimony.
2. Whether the evidence was sufficient to support conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 894(a)(1) for using extortionate means to collect an asserted debt.
3. Whether the evidence was sufficient to support conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 1952 based on use of interstate facilities with intent to further unlawful activity involving violence and subsequent acts in furtherance.

## Decision

- The Fourth Circuit affirmed the convictions.
- The court held the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying disclosure of the informant’s identity and in quashing the subpoena.
- Applying the Roviaro balancing test, the court found the informant’s involvement was peripheral and disclosure would jeopardize ongoing undercover investigations.
- The court held the trial evidence, viewed in the government’s favor, was sufficient to support the § 894 conviction based on threats and arrangements for violence to collect claimed royalties.
- The court held the evidence was sufficient to support the § 1952 conviction based on communications and actions facilitating a violence-backed collection scheme, including acceptance of purported payment and payment of a collection fee.

## Legal Principles

- Informant identity disclosure is governed by a case-specific balance between the public interest in confidentiality and the defendant’s need for the information to prepare a defense.
- Nondisclosure is generally proper when the informant is not a direct participant or material witness to the charged conduct, and the defendant can test the government’s proof through other evidence (including recordings and cross-examination of undercover agents).
- A defendant’s claim that conversations with an informant were important does not, by itself, require disclosure when confidentiality interests are strong and the informant’s role is limited.
- Under 18 U.S.C. § 894(a)(1), “extortionate means” can include threats, intimidation, and arranging physical violence to collect or attempt to collect an asserted debt.
- Under 18 U.S.C. § 1952, use of interstate facilities with intent to further unlawful activity involving violence, followed by acts in furtherance, supports conviction.

## Conclusion

The Fourth Circuit upheld Brinkman’s extortionate-collection and interstate-travel convictions, ruling that the district court properly protected an active informant’s identity under the Roviaro balancing framework because the informant’s role was minimal and the defense had other effective means to challenge the government’s case.


United States v. Brinkman, 739 F.2d 977 (4th Cir. 1984)