United States v. Walker
657 F.3d 160, 2011 WL 4035767 (2011)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A robbery or attempted robbery of a drug dealer satisfies the interstate commerce element of the Hobbs Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a), where the government proves the drugs originated out of state, because the aggregate effect of such robberies substantially affects the interstate market for illegal narcotics.
Facts:
- Brothers Barron Walker and Barry Walker were engaged in selling crack cocaine in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.
- In the weeks prior to May 31, 2007, the Walkers regularly conducted drug sales while one of them possessed a firearm.
- On May 31, 2007, the Walker brothers and three associates planned to rob a street-level drug dealer of drugs and money.
- The Walkers supplied a firearm to an associate to be used during the robbery.
- They targeted Edward Wright, a 17-year-old crack cocaine dealer who was selling drugs for the first time.
- At the time of the attempted robbery, Wright had just completed his first sale, earning about $40-$50, and possessed cocaine he had purchased locally for $60.
- The attempted robbery devolved into a shootout, and the conspirators failed to take Wright's drugs, money, or firearm.
Procedural Posture:
- Barron Walker and Barry Walker were charged in a superseding indictment in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania.
- Barron Walker filed a pre-trial motion to sever his trial from his brother's, which the district court denied.
- The Walkers objected to the government's plan to use Chief John Goshert as an expert witness, but the district court permitted his testimony.
- Following a joint jury trial, both defendants were convicted of multiple counts, including Hobbs Act robbery.
- The defendants filed a post-trial motion for a new trial based on an alleged Brady violation, which the district court denied.
- The district court sentenced both Barron Walker and Barry Walker to terms of 47.5 years in prison.
- The Walkers (appellants) appealed their convictions to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
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 the attempted robbery of a first-time, street-level drug dealer for a de minimis amount of drugs and cash affect interstate commerce sufficiently to support a conviction under the Hobbs Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a)?
Opinions:
Majority - Pollak, District Judge
Yes, the attempted robbery of a street-level drug dealer for even a minimal amount of drugs and cash affects interstate commerce under the Hobbs Act if the drugs originated from out of state. The court's reasoning is that the Hobbs Act's reach is coextensive with Congress's broad authority under the Commerce Clause. Following precedent set after United States v. Lopez, the government need only prove a de minimis effect on interstate commerce for quintessentially economic activities like robbery. The court found that robberies of drug dealers, when considered as a class of activity, have a substantial aggregate effect on the interstate market for illegal drugs. In this case, the government provided reliable expert testimony that cocaine sold in Harrisburg is manufactured outside Pennsylvania, which established a direct nexus between the local robbery and interstate commerce. The fact that the target was a neophyte dealer with a small quantity of drugs is irrelevant, as the analysis focuses on the 'class of activities' (robbing drug dealers) rather than the specific facts of a single instance.
Analysis:
This decision reaffirms the expansive jurisdictional reach of the Hobbs Act in the post-Lopez era, particularly concerning crimes involving illegal narcotics. It establishes that even seemingly minor, local street crimes can be federalized if they target an activity, like drug dealing, that is part of a broader interstate market. The ruling solidifies the use of the aggregation principle from Gonzales v. Raich, allowing federal prosecution based on the cumulative effect of a class of crimes, thereby lowering the bar for establishing the interstate commerce nexus in individual cases. This precedent strengthens the government's ability to use expert testimony on the origin of contraband to satisfy the Hobbs Act's jurisdictional element, giving federal prosecutors significant discretion in charging what might otherwise be state-level robbery offenses.
