## Facts

- A series of armed robberies targeted jewelry stores in the Kansas City area; at least one robber displayed a firearm while the group ransacked display cases.
- Clarence Burnett organized the robberies and later cooperated with the government; stolen jewelry was brought to his house for sorting.
- The stolen jewelry was funneled to a pawnshop operated by Angelo and Joseph Porrello to be fenced.
- Trial evidence (including Burnett’s testimony and corroborating records) tied Michael Hatcher to participation in two robberies as an armed robber.
- Evidence also supported that Angelo and Joseph Porrello participated beyond fencing by helping plan robberies and supplying items such as guns, bulletproof vests, and store floor plans.
- The government sought Hobbs Act liability on the theory that the victim stores bought inventory from out-of-state suppliers and replaced stolen goods through interstate channels.
- While certain cooperating coconspirators were incarcerated, their telephone calls with counsel were recorded under institutional monitoring; the defense sought access to the recordings, asserting any attorney–client privilege was waived by use of recorded lines.

## Issues

1. Whether sufficient evidence showed the robberies affected interstate commerce to support Hobbs Act convictions (18 U.S.C. § 1951).
2. Whether an alleged error in the attempted money laundering jury instruction required reversal.
3. Whether the Porrellos were entitled to an accessory-after-the-fact instruction as a lesser-included offense.
4. Whether recorded inmate telephone calls with counsel were privileged or waived due to monitoring, and what inquiry the district court was required to conduct.
5. Whether the criminal forfeiture order against Angelo Porrello was supported by adequate notice in the charging instrument and the trial record.

## Decision

- The court affirmed the convictions and most sentencing rulings.
- The Hobbs Act commerce element was satisfied; the evidence of an effect on interstate commerce was ample.
- Any instructional error on attempted money laundering was harmless and did not warrant reversal.
- The district court properly refused an accessory-after-the-fact instruction because it is not a lesser-included offense of the charged crimes.
- The court remanded for further proceedings concerning the recorded inmate–attorney calls to determine privilege and waiver on a more developed record.
- The forfeiture challenges were largely rejected; limited remand was permitted to address clerical or related matters.

## Legal Principles

- The Hobbs Act’s commerce element is met by proof that a robbery obstructs, delays, or affects interstate commerce in any way or degree; depletion of a business’s inventory that is replenished through interstate suppliers can satisfy the requirement.
- An erroneous jury instruction warrants reversal only if it affects substantial rights; where evidence supporting the verdict is strong, instructional error may be harmless.
- A lesser-included offense must not require proof of any element not required by the greater offense; accessory after the fact is not lesser included because it requires post-offense assistance intended to hinder apprehension or punishment.
- Attorney–client privilege may be waived when the client knowingly exposes communications to third-party monitoring; when monitoring is asserted to defeat privilege for recorded inmate–attorney calls, courts must make a fact-specific determination based on an adequate record rather than accepting blanket assertions.
- Criminal forfeiture requires sufficient notice in the charging instrument; ministerial omissions in judgment paperwork may be corrected without vacating otherwise valid forfeiture findings.

## Conclusion

The court upheld robbery-related convictions and most related rulings, emphasizing the Hobbs Act’s broad commerce nexus and rejecting several instruction and forfeiture challenges, but remanded for targeted fact-finding on whether recorded inmate communications with counsel remained privileged or were waived by monitored prison telephone use.


United States v. Hatcher, 323 F.3d 666 (8th Cir. 2003)