Lexplug logoLexplug

United States v. Russell J. Saadey, Jr.

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
66 Fed. R. Serv. 191, 393 F.3d 669, 32 A.L.R. 6th 769 (2005)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A private citizen who is not in the process of becoming a public official may be convicted of attempted extortion under color of official right in violation of the Hobbs Act only if that citizen conspires with, or aids and abets, a public official in the act of extortion.


Facts:

  • From 1994 to 1995, Russell Saadey was employed as an investigator for the Mahoning County Prosecutor's Office and participated in a case-fixing scheme.
  • Saadey left his employment with the prosecutor's office before the events in question occurred.
  • In May 1996, Saadey, now a private citizen, approached Kenneth Olsavsky, who was facing two pending DUI charges.
  • Saadey attempted to solicit approximately $16,000 from Olsavsky.
  • Saadey told Olsavsky that the money would be used to bribe Assistant Prosecutor James A. Vitullo to reduce the charges in Olsavsky's cases.
  • There was no evidence that Vitullo was involved in this scheme or that Saadey was working with him; the indictment described Saadey's representation as a 'pretense'.

Procedural Posture:

  • Russell Saadey and James Vitullo were charged in a superceding indictment in federal district court with racketeering and extortion-related offenses.
  • Saadey filed a pre-trial motion to dismiss Count 8 (attempted extortion), arguing his conduct as a private citizen did not violate the Hobbs Act.
  • The district court (the trial court) denied the motion, ruling that Saadey could be prosecuted because he 'masqueraded' as having official influence.
  • Following a jury trial, Saadey was convicted on Count 1 (RICO conspiracy), Count 8 (attempted extortion), and other financial crime counts.
  • Saadey's co-defendant, James Vitullo, was acquitted on all charges.
  • The district court sentenced Saadey to a term of imprisonment of 55 months.
  • Saadey (as appellant) appealed his conviction and sentence to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does a private citizen who attempts to solicit money under the pretense of bribing a public official, without any actual involvement from that official, commit attempted extortion 'under color of official right' in violation of the Hobbs Act?


Opinions:

Majority - Batchelder, Circuit Judge.

No. A private citizen's attempt to obtain money under the pretense of bribing a public official does not constitute extortion 'under color of official right' under the Hobbs Act unless the private citizen conspires with or aids and abets a public official. The court reasoned that the 'color of official right' theory is designed to prosecute public officials who abuse their power, or private individuals who act in concert with them. The court distinguished this case from those where a private citizen actively conspires with government officials, such as in United States v. Collins. Here, Saadey was a private citizen at the time of the offense, and the indictment specified that he acted under the 'pretense' of bribing Vitullo. The prosecution offered no evidence that Saadey was aiding, abetting, or conspiring with Vitullo, and a jury acquitted Vitullo of all related charges, reinforcing the conclusion that there was no official involvement. Therefore, Saadey’s conduct, undertaken alone as a private citizen, falls outside the scope of the Hobbs Act's 'under color of official right' provision.



Analysis:

This decision clarifies and narrows the scope of Hobbs Act liability for private citizens in the Sixth Circuit. It establishes a clear boundary, holding that the mere pretense of influence over a public official is insufficient to sustain a conviction for extortion 'under color of official right.' The ruling prevents the statute from being used as a general fraud provision against any scheme that merely invokes the name of a public official. For future cases, this precedent requires prosecutors to prove a tangible nexus—either conspiracy or aiding and abetting—between the private citizen and an actual public official to secure a conviction under this theory.

🤖 Gunnerbot:
Query United States v. Russell J. Saadey, Jr. (2005) directly. You can ask questions about any aspect of the case. If it's in the case, Gunnerbot will know.
Locked
Subscribe to Lexplug to chat with the Gunnerbot about this case.

Unlock the full brief for United States v. Russell J. Saadey, Jr.