## Facts

- Autumn Jackson claimed William H. Cosby, Jr. was her biological father and sought money from him after experiencing financial difficulties.
- After Cosby’s representatives declined further payments, Jackson threatened to publicize her claim to tabloids unless Cosby paid.
- Jackson and Jose Medina obtained a written tabloid offer to buy the story and used it to pressure Cosby’s attorneys and others, demanding a large settlement (up to $40 million).
- The government introduced testimony, recordings, and seized documents supporting that defendants conditioned silence (or nonpublication) on payment.
- Cosby contacted the FBI, which arranged a sting leading to the arrests of Jackson, Medina, and Boris Sabas (who assisted the trip connected to the scheme).

## Issues

1. Whether “intent to extort” in 18 U.S.C. § 875(d) requires proof that the demand was “wrongful.”
2. Whether a threat to injure reputation in exchange for money is wrongful only when it lacks a nexus to a claim of right.
3. Whether the failure to instruct the jury on wrongfulness required reversal of the § 875(d), Travel Act, and conspiracy convictions.
4. Whether the evidence was sufficient to permit retrial and whether key evidentiary and severance rulings were erroneous.

## Decision

- The court vacated all convictions and remanded for a new trial.
- It held that § 875(d)’s “intent to extort” element requires a wrongful demand; the jury instructions omitted this essential element.
- Because the Travel Act and conspiracy counts were premised on the same allegedly extortionate conduct, the instructional error required a new trial on those counts as well.
- The evidence was sufficient to permit a properly instructed jury to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, so retrial was not barred.
- The court found no abuse of discretion in excluding additional portions of a recording under the completeness doctrine and no reversible error in denying severance for Sabas.

## Legal Principles

- Under 18 U.S.C. § 875(d), “intent to extort” incorporates a requirement that the demand be wrongful.
- A threat to harm reputation is not automatically wrongful merely because payment is demanded; wrongfulness turns on whether the threat lacks a nexus to a claim of right.
- Omitting an essential element from jury instructions on the extortion predicate can require reversal of related Travel Act and conspiracy convictions that depend on the same predicate conduct.
- When convictions are reversed for instructional error, retrial is permitted if the trial evidence was sufficient to support conviction under the correct legal standard.

## Conclusion

The court required a wrongfulness finding for extortion under § 875(d) and ordered a new trial because the jury charge allowed conviction based on threats to reputation and a demand for money without requiring that the demand be wrongful, while also holding the evidence sufficient to allow retrial.


United States v. Jackson, 180 F.3d 55 (2d Cir. 1999)