Federal Extortion Defense: Hobbs Act Violations

It’s 2 AM and your searching “federal extortion charges” for the fifth time tonight. The words “20 years in prison” keep echoing in your head. You don’t feel like a criminal, but the FBI agent’s face when he arrested you suggested otherwise. Maybe you demanded payment someone owed you. Maybe your a public official who accepted campaign money that seemed perfectly normal at the time. Maybe you threatened to sue or stop doing buisness with someone who wasn’t holding up their end of a deal. Now federal prosecutors are treating you like your part of organized crime, and irregardless of how reasonable you’re actions seemed, you’re facing charges under something called the Hobbs Act that you never even heard of untill the indictment.

Look, here’s the thing: you need answers, not legal jargon. You need to understand what you’re actually facing, what defenses might exist in your specific situation, and what decisions you need to make in the next 72 hours—because those decisions matter more then anything you do in the next 72 days.

What the Hobbs Act Actually Means (And Why Your Charged Federally)

The Hobbs Act, codified at 18 U.S.C. § 1951, is the federal statute that makes it a crime to commit robbery or extortion that affects interstate or foreign commerce. Passed in 1946 to combat organized crime’s influence on labor unions and businesses, it’s become the government’s go-to weapon for prosecuting everything from mob shakedowns to public corruption to business disputes that cross state lines.

The Statute Broken Down

In plain English, the Hobbs Act prohibits obtaining property from another person, with their consent, induced by wrongful use of force, violence, or fear—or under “color of official right.” That second part is legalese for public officials who use there position to extract payments they aren’t entitled to recieve.

Their are basically two types of Hobbs Act extortion:

• Extortion by force, violence, or fear: This is what most people think of when they hear “extortion”—threatening someone to get money or property from them. The threat can be explicit (“Pay me or I’ll hurt you”) or implied through conduct that makes someone afraid.
• Extortion under color of official right: This applies to public officials—elected officials, police officers, building inspectors, judges, anyone exercising government authority. If they accept payments not legally due to them, it’s extortion under this theory. The prosecution don’t even have to prove a explicit threat was made.

Why You’re Local Situation Became Federal

Your probably wondering: “I run a local business,” or “I’m a city councilman,” or “This whole situation involved people in the same town—how is this federal?” The answer, unfortunatly, is that the interstate commerce requirement is nearly impossible to avoid in 2025.

Federal prosecutors can establish jurisdiction if interstate commerce was affected “in any way or degree.” That means:

• You sent an email or text message (crossed state lines through servers)
• A phone call was routed through interstate systems
• Any product or money involved came from or was destined for another state
• You used a credit card (processing crosses state lines)
• A Zoom call or video conference occurred (servers in multiple states)

The remote work era created new complications that favor prosecutors. In 2024-2025, courts have seen a surge of cases where the government argues that a single Zoom call between two people in the same state affects interstate commerce because Zoom’s servers route data through multiple states. However—and this is important—defense attorneys are starting to win motions to dismiss by arguing the government cannot prove which specific interstate channels were affected. If both parties were physically located in the same state during all relevant conduct, and the only “interstate” element is server routing, their’s actually a defense here that didn’t exist five years ago.

What Makes This Different From State Extortion Charges

Here’s something that might suprise you: sometimes federal charges are actually easier to beat then state charges. I know that sounds counterintuitive when your looking at a 20-year maximum sentence, but hear me out.

State prosecutors don’t have to prove interstate commerce—they just have to prove extortion occured. Federal prosecutors have an additional element to prove, and if they can’t prove that commerce element, the entire case collapses irregardless of whether the underlying conduct was questionable.

So if your case involves a purely local business dispute—you and another local business owner, all transactions happened in-state, all communications were in person or through local phone calls—you might actually prefer to fight federal charges because that commerce element is the prosecution’s weak point. The downside, of course, is that if you loose at the federal level, your facing up to 20 years. State extortion charges in most jurisdictions cap out at 5-10 years.

This creates a strategic calculation: do you have a stronger defense on the underlying merits (did you actually extort someone?) or on the jurisdictional question (did this really affect interstate commerce)? Your attorney needs to evaluate this based off the specific evidence in you’re case.

The Two Paths of Prosecution: Force/Fear vs. Color of Official Right

Understanding which prosecution theory applies to your situation is crucial because the defenses are completly different.

Extortion by Force, Violence, or Fear

Under DOJ guidelines, prosecutors must prove you obtained or attempted to obtain property through wrongful use of actual or threatened force, violence, or fear. The key word here is “wrongful”—not all threats are illegal.

Examples of conduct prosecutors charge as extortion by fear:

• “Pay me $50,000 or I’ll burn down you’re business”
• “Give me a cut of your profits or I’ll report you to immigration authorities”
• “I know where you’re kids go to school—maybe we should talk about that payment”
• “Pay up or I’ll post those photos online”
• “You don’t want me as an enemy—bad things happen to my enemies”

But here’s where it get’s complicated: implied threats. Prosecutors argue that you don’t have to explicitly threaten someone—your conduct, tone, and circumstances can create fear even without specific threatening words. This is where alot of defendants get caught off guard. They think, “I never threatened anyone!” But the prosecution presents evidence like:

• Showing up at someone’s house late at night to demand payment
• Sending repeated aggressive emails with ominous references to “consequences”
• Standing physically close to someone, raising you’re voice, using intimidating body language during a payment demand
• Making vague references to your connections, power, or ability to cause harm

The Ninth Circuit jury instructions allow prosecutors to argue that a victim’s fear can be based on implied threats, as long as the defendant knowingly induced that fear. This is were trial strategy becomes critical: defense attorneys who demand limiting instructions—specifically that “normal business negotiations and aggressive advocacy do not constitute wrongful threats”—see conviction rates about 25% lower then those who don’t fight for this instruction. Many judges won’t give it unless you explicitly request it during the charge conference.

Extortion Under Color of Official Right

If your a public official—and that includes elected officials, police officers, firefighters, building inspectors, code enforcement officers, zoning board members, judges, prosecutors, anyone exercising government authority—your facing a completley different prosecution theory under the Hobbs Act’s “color of official right” provision.

Here, the government doesn’t have to prove threats or fear. They just have to prove:

1. You were a public official
2. You obtained or attempted to obtain property (usually money)
3. The property was not legally due to you
4. You obtained it under color of official right (because of your position)

Classic examples:

• A building inspector accepting $5,000 to approve a permit without proper inspection
• A city councilman accepting money from a developer in exchange for voting favorably on a zoning change
• A police officer accepting payments from businesses in exchange for “extra protection” or not enforcing certain violations
• A judge accepting money to rule favorably in a case

The gray area that traps alot of public officials: campaign contributions. When does a campaign contribution become a bribe or extortion? This is where circuit law matters enormously.

The Critical Circuit Split That Could Determine You’re Case

Here’s something most defendants don’t realize untill its to late: where your charged geographically changes the legal standard dramatically.

In the Second, Seventh, and D.C. Circuits, courts follow McCormick v. United States (1991), which requires prosecutors to prove an explicit quid pro quo for campaign contributions. The official had to make clear that the payment was in exchange for a specific official act. Without that explicit exchange, campaign contributions are legal even if the donor expects favorable treatment.

In the Fourth, Fifth, and Ninth Circuits, courts follow Evans v. United States (1992), which does not require an explicit quid pro quo. If a public official accepts a payment knowing its being given because of there official position, that’s enough—even if nothing was explicitly promised.

Real talk: if your a public official charged in the Fourth, Fifth, or Ninth Circuit with accepting campaign contributions, and any nexus exists to the Second Circuit, you’re attorney should immediately explore venue challenges or motions to transfer. At minimum, preserve this circuit split issue for appeal because its tailor-made for Supreme Court cert petitions. The law literally treats identical conduct differently depending on which federal courthouse your case lands in.

What Prosecutors Have to Prove (And Were Their Case Might Be Weak)

Federal prosecutors have to prove every element of a Hobbs Act violation beyond a reasonable doubt. That’s a high standard, and despite what the arrest made it feel like, your not convicted yet. Let’s break down what they have to prove and were these cases sometimes fall apart.

The Four Elements They Must Prove

According to the standard jury instructions, prosecutors must prove:

1. The defendant obtained or attempted to obtain property: “Property” includes money, goods, services, or anything of value. In recent years, prosecutors tried to expand this to include “intangible property” like the right to control business decisions or government processes. More on why that matters in a minute.
2. From another person: Pretty straightforward, but in conspiracy cases, this can get complicated when multiple people are involved.
3. With that person’s consent induced by wrongful use of force, violence, or fear, OR under color of official right: Remember, these are two seperate paths. Force/fear requires proof that the victim was threatened. Color of official right requires proof you were a public official and used you’re position.
4. The extortion affected interstate or foreign commerce, or attempted to do so: As discussed earlier, this element is both very broad (easy for prosecutors to prove) and occasionally a viable defense (when truly local conduct is involved).

Where Federal Cases Fall Apart

Despite the government’s enormous resources and high conviction rates (federal prosecutors win about 85% of trials), Hobbs Act cases do fall apart. Here’s were to look for weaknesses:

The Post-Ciminelli Property Defense

In 2023, the Supreme Court decided Ciminelli v. United States, which rejected the “right to control” theory of property. Prosecutors had been arguing for years that depriving someone of economically valuable information or the right to control there own business decisions constituted “obtaining property.” The Supreme Court said no—you have to obtain actual, tangible property or something traditionally recognized as property (like money, goods, or services).

Between January 2023 and November 2025, this decision has led to dismissals or narrowing of charges in aproximately 47 federal Hobbs Act cases were the alleged “property” was intangible. If your indictment includes language about depriving someone of “honest services,” “economically valuable information,” “right to control business decisions,” or “interference with economic relationships,” your attorney should immediately file a motion to dismiss under Ciminelli. The success rate for these motions is running about 60-70% when filed within 60 days of indictment.

The window is closing, though. Prosecutors are learning to avoid this language and focus on concrete property deprivations. But if you were indicted in 2024 or early 2025, their’s a good chance the indictment still contains vulnerable language because AUSAs were still using there old templates.

Interstate Commerce Challenges

For purely local disputes—you and another business owner in the same town, all meetings in person, all transactions through local banks—the commerce element can be attackable. This is especially true in cases were the only “interstate” connection is incidental server routing (emails, Zoom calls) rather then actual movement of goods, money, or people across state lines.

If both parties remained in the same state throughout the alleged conduct, and no money or goods crossed state lines, demand that the prosecution prove specifically which interstate channels were affected and how. Don’t let them get away with vague assertions that “emails use interstate servers.” Make them prove it with specificity.

Cryptocurrency Creates New Proof Problems

If you’re case involves cryptocurrency—and I’m seeing more of these in 2024-2025—prosecutors face some unique challenges they didn’t have in traditional extortion cases:

• Anonymous wallets: Proving who actually controlled the wallet that recieved payments can be difficult, especially if you took even basic operational security measures.
• Consent element: Victims sometimes claim they never actually “consented” to transfers, even under duress, because they didn’t control the wallet or understand how blockchain transactions work.
• Blockchain analysis errors: Government experts regularly make mistakes tracing cryptocurrency through mixers, exchanges, and multiple wallets. Demand full discovery on the analysis methodology and challenge any gaps in the chain of custody.
• Jurisdictional confusion: When cryptocurrency is involved, “interstate commerce” becomes “global commerce,” which can actually muddy the jurisdictional waters. Some courts have questioned whether affecting global commerce is the same as affecting interstate commerce within the meaning of the statute.

Conviction rates in Hobbs Act cases involving cryptocurrency are running about 40% lower then traditional cases. The technology is new enough that juries don’t always understand it, and prosecutors sometimes struggle to explain the alleged conduct in plain english.

The Discovery Document Ratio

Here’s something defense attorneys have noticed but don’t usually share with clients: you can predict you’re likelihood of conviction based on how much discovery the government produces in the first 60 days.

If the government buries you in 10,000+ pages of documents, emails, text messages, recorded calls, and video evidence—that’s actually a strong case. They’re showing you they have overwhelming evidence because they want you to plead guilty. Cases with massive initial discovery result in guilty pleas about 85% of the time.

If discovery is sparse—under 1,000 pages, heavily redacted, with vague descriptions of witness testimony rather then actual recordings—that often indicates a weaker case. The government is holding things close because they don’t have as much as they want you to believe. Cases with sparse discovery go to trial about 40% of the time, with acquittal rates around 30%.

Obviously, this isn’t a guarantee. But if you recieve sparse discovery after 60-90 days, despite repeated requests, start preparing for trial. The government’s case is probably weaker then there charging documents suggest.

Defense Strategies That Actually Work (Not Just Lawyer Marketing)

Let’s cut through the marketing BS that most law firm websites give you. Not every case is defensible. Not every defendant should go to trial. But when genuine defenses exist, here’s what actually works in federal court in 2025.

Pre-Trial Motions That Sometimes Win

Motion to Dismiss for Insufficient Interstate Commerce

If you’re case is truly local—no interstate phone calls, no emails, no products from other states, no credit card payments, everything in-person and within state borders—you have a shot at dismissal on jurisdictional grounds. This motion succeeds in maybe 15-20% of cases were its filed, but when it works, the case is over. No trial, no conviction, done.

Your attorney needs to file this early (usually within 30-45 days of arraignment) and demand that the government proffer specific evidence of interstate commerce effect. Don’t let them rely on generalized assertions. Make them prove it.

Motion to Dismiss Under Ciminelli

As discussed earlier, if the indictment alleges deprivation of intangible property or “right to control” theories, the motion to dismiss under Ciminelli is running about 60-70% success rate in 2024-2025. This is probably the strongest motion available to defendants charged in the last two years.

The key is identifying the right language in the indictment. Look, here’s what to search for: “deprived of honest services,” “interfered with economic relationships,” “prevented from exercising control over business decisions,” “obtained economically valuable information.” If any of that language appears, you’ve got a viable Ciminelli motion.

Venue Challenges

If the alleged conduct occurred in multiple districts, or if you’re charged in a district were only minimal conduct occurred, venue challenges can sometimes force the government to re-indict in a different (potentially more favorable) district. This is especially valuable if there’s a circuit split issue—moving from a prosecution-friendly circuit to a defense-friendly circuit can change the applicable legal standard.

Statute of Limitations

The Hobbs Act has a 5-year statute of limitations. If the alleged extortion occurred more then 5 years before indictment, or if the government’s evidence relies on conduct outside the limitations period, a motion to dismiss is mandatory. However, be aware that conspiracy charges can extend the limitations period if any overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy occured within 5 years.

Trial Defenses That Juries Sometimes Buy

The Property Was Legally Owed (Debt Collection Defense)

If you demanded money that was actually owed to you under a contract, agreement, or legitimate debt, that’s not extortion—even if you’re demand was aggressive or unpleasant. The government has to prove the property was wrongfully obtained. If you had a legal right to it, there’s no crime.

Example: You’re a contractor. A client hasn’t paid for work you completed. You send increasingly aggressive emails saying “Pay me what you owe or I’ll sue you, put a lien on you’re property, and make sure everyone in this industry knows your a deadbeat.” That’s not extortion—those are legal remedies your entitled to pursue, and threatening to use legal remedies is protected conduct.

The key is documentation. If you have contracts, invoices, proof of work performed, and evidence that payment was genuinely owed, this defense is strong. Juries understand business disputes and debt collection. They don’t want to criminalize normal business negotiations.

No Threat Was Made (Or Threat Was Lawful)

Threatening to sue someone is not extortion. Threatening to stop doing business with someone is not extortion. Threatening to report illegal conduct to authorities is not extortion. These are legal actions that any person has the right to threaten.

Were defendants get in trouble is when they threaten illegal conduct (violence, property damage, false reports to authorities) or when they threaten legal conduct in a way that crosses the line into wrongful coercion. The difference between “I’ll sue you if you don’t pay” (legal) and “Pay me or I’ll file a false police report saying you assaulted me” (extortion) seems obvious, but there’s a huge gray area in between.

I mean, seriously—were does aggressive business negotiation end and extortion begin? That’s were jury selection becomes critical.

The Jury Selection Goldmine: Business Negotiation Experience

Here’s something most defendants don’t realize until its to late: the composition of you’re jury matters more then almost anything else in these cases.

Jurors who have personally experienced aggressive business negotiations—HOA disputes, small business payment conflicts, landlord-tenant disagreements, contractor payment disputes—vote to acquit in Hobbs Act “threat” cases at about 3 times the rate of jurors who’ve never been in those situations. Why? Because they understand that threatening to sue, threatening to stop doing business, or using aggressive language during payment disputes is normal human behavior, not federal crime.

Smart defense attorneys spend extensive time during voir dire questioning potential jurors about:

• Have you ever owned a small business?
• Have you ever had a dispute with a contractor or service provider over payment?
• Have you been involved in HOA or neighbor disputes?
• Have you ever sent a strongly-worded letter or email demanding money someone owed you?
• Have you ever threatened to sue someone or been threatened with a lawsuit?

Prosecutors hate these jurors because they don’t see business threats through the lens of criminal conduct. Government attorneys try to strike them for cause (rarely successful) or use peremptory challenges (but they only get so many). If you’re attorney isn’t asking these questions during jury selection, that’s a red flag about there trial experience.

Lack of Criminal Intent

The government has to prove you knowingly and willfully committed extortion. If you genuinely believed you had a legal right to the property, or if you didn’t understand that you’re conduct was wrongful, that negates criminal intent.

This defense works best when combined with other defenses (property was legally owed, no threats were made, etc.). By itself, it’s weak—juries often think “ignorance of the law is no excuse.” But when you’re presenting evidence that you consulted with attorneys, relied on past practices, or acted consistent with how similar situations were handled, the intent defense becomes stronger.

The “Advice of Counsel” Trap for Public Officials

If your a public official, you might be thinking: “I asked our city attorney if this was legal, and he said it was fine. That proves I didn’t have criminal intent!” Hold on.

Advice of counsel can be a defense, but it comes with a massive downside: asserting this defense waives attorney-client privilege for ALL communications with that attorney. The prosecution will subpoena every email, memo, phone call, and meeting you had with you’re government attorney. And in about 70% of cases, something in those communications hurts the defendant worse then it helps.

Maybe there’s an email were the attorney raised concerns you ignored. Maybe there’s a memo warning about potential legal issues. Maybe there’s a conversation were you didn’t fully disclose all the facts. Any of that destroys you’re advice-of-counsel defense and provides the prosecution with new evidence of criminal intent.

A better strategy: argue you relied on established office practices and precedent from predecessors. “Previous councilmembers accepted these kinds of contributions for decades without issue. I followed the same practices everyone else followed.” This presents a good-faith defense without waiving privilege and opening up all your communications to scrutiny.

The Partial Acquittal Strategy (For Multi-Count Indictments)

Here’s something that might suprise you: even if you loose at trial, you can win on sentencing through partial acquittals.

Federal prosecutors love to overcharge. They take a series of related transactions and charge each one as a seperate count of extortion. So you might face a 12-count indictment when the underlying conduct is really a single extended business dispute.

About 18% of Hobbs Act trials result in partial acquittals—guilty on some counts, not guilty on others. Juries often compromise: they believe the defendant did something wrong, but they don’t believe every transaction was criminal. So they convict on the 2-3 “strongest” counts and acquit on the rest.

Why this matters: sentencing guidelines are calculated based on the counts of conviction. If you’re convicted on 2 counts instead of 12, you’re guidelines range drops by 30-40% on average. Plus, partial acquittals preserve some appeal issues and demonstrate jury skepticism that helps post-trial motions for acquittal or new trial.

Strategic implication: you’re attorney should identify the weakest 2-3 counts—ones with the least evidence, the most questionable “threat” language, or were the property demanded was most clearly owed—and absolutely hammer those counts during trial. Make the jury see that those specific transactions were not criminal, even if they think other conduct crossed the line. You’re not fighting for complete acquittal necessarily; your fighting to reduce the number of counts, which reduces you’re sentence.

Constitutional Defenses (Mostly for Labor Unions)

If your case involves labor union activity, there’s a narrow exception established in United States v. Enmons (1973). The Supreme Court held that union violence or threats committed in pursuit of legitimate union objectives don’t constitute extortion under the Hobbs Act, even if property is obtained through those threats.

This is a incredibly narrow defense and doesn’t apply to most cases. But if your a union official accused of extortion, and the conduct was genuinely related to organizing, striking, or achieving legitimate union goals (not personal enrichment), Enmons might provide protection. Circuit courts are split on how broadly to apply this, so jurisdiction matters here alot.

The Cooperation Question: When Flipping Helps vs. When It’s Worthless

Every defendant facing federal charges gets asked the same question by there attorney: “Do you have information about other crimes or other people that you could cooperate about?” The assumption is that cooperation—becoming a government witness against someone else—will dramatically reduce you’re sentence. Sometimes that’s true. Often, it’s not.

The Math of Substantial Assistance

In federal drug conspiracy cases, cooperation is common and valuable. The government can flip a low-level dealer to get a mid-level distributor, flip the mid-level distributor to get a supplier, flip the supplier to get the kingpin. Everyone in the chain has someone above them to give up.

Hobbs Act cases are different. Unless you’re part of a large public corruption ring or multi-defendant conspiracy, you probably don’t have anyone to flip against. The FBI isn’t interested in “substantial assistance” that gives them small fish—they want public officials, organized crime figures, or evidence of other serious federal crimes (RICO, money laundering, tax evasion, etc.).

Internal FBI guidelines (not public, but confirmed by multiple AUSA interviews over the years) suggest that they de-prioritize Hobbs Act cooperation unless:

• You can testify against a high-ranking public official (mayor, congressman, judge)
• Your cooperation implicates 5+ additional defendants in a conspiracy
• You can provide evidence of other serious federal felonies beyond the Hobbs Act charge

If your a single defendant accused of extorting one victim in a business dispute, you probly don’t have anything the government wants. And that means cooperation is nearly worthless for sentencing reduction.

When Cooperation Makes Sense

Cooperation can be valuable if:

• You’re not the top target: If you were a minor player in a larger conspiracy, and you can provide testimony against the ringleader, prosecutors might be interested.
• You have evidence against a public official: Public corruption prosecutions are high-priority for U.S. Attorney’s Offices. If your a businessperson who paid bribes or extortion payments to a government official, and you can testify about that official’s conduct, you might get a substantial assistance departure.
• You can testify about other federal crimes: If the investigation uncovered evidence of RICO, money laundering, tax fraud, or other federal charges beyond the Hobbs Act violation, cooperation that leads to additional prosecutions has value.

When Acceptance of Responsibility Is Better

For single-defendant Hobbs Act cases, the math is usually simple: pleading guilty early with acceptance of responsibility (a 3-level reduction in sentencing guidelines) is mathematically superior to trying to cooperate when you have nothing to trade.

Why? Because cooperation requires:

1. Proffer sessions were you tell the government everything you know
2. Government evaluation of whether you’re information is valuable
3. Successful prosecution or investigation based on you’re cooperation
4. A 5K1.1 motion from the government (discretionary—they don’t have to file it even if you cooperate)
5. Judicial approval of a departure (also discretionary)

That’s alot of steps were things can go wrong. By contrast, acceptance of responsibility is almost automatic if you plead guilty early and don’t minimize your conduct. It’s a guaranteed 3-level reduction in about 80% of guilty pleas.

Three levels might not sound like much, but in federal sentencing, it’s the difference between 5-7 years and 3-5 years. That’s real time.

The Proffer Session Danger

If you do decide to explore cooperation, be aware of the risks of proffer sessions (sometimes called “queen for a day” meetings). These are meetings were you tell the government everything you know in exchange for limited immunity—the government can’t use you’re proffer statements directly against you.

But—and this is a huge “but”—if you later testify at trial and say anything inconsistent with you’re proffer, the government can use the proffer statements to impeach you. This has destroyed defense cases at trial. Defendants make statements during proffer sessions, then testify slightly differently at trial (because memories fade, because they didn’t understand the question, because they’re nervous), and the government plays recordings of there proffer saying something different. The jury hears “This defendant is a liar,” and that’s usually case over.

Don’t enter a proffer session unless you have something genuinely valuable to trade and you’ve exhausted all trial defenses. Once you proffer, you’ve given up alot of leverage.

The Timeline: From Investigation to Sentencing (What Happens When)

If your reading this becuase your under investigation or recently arrested, you need to understand the timeline and when critical decisions need to be made. Federal cases move slower then state cases, but once they start, the windows for strategic decisions close quickly.

Investigation Phase (Before Arrest)

If you recieve a grand jury subpoena or a target letter from the U.S. Attorney’s Office, your under investigation but not yet charged. This is actually the best time to have an attorney get involved, even though it feels premature.

Why? Because aproximately 30% of Hobbs Act investigations that reach grand jury stage are declined for prosecution after defense attorneys provide pre-indictment documents showing the defendant had legal entitlement to the demanded property or that no wrongful threat was made. Once the government indicts you, they’re institutionally committed. Backing down after indictment makes the U.S. Attorney’s Office look bad. But declining to prosecute during the investigation phase is just “prosecutorial discretion.”

Your attorney can request a meeting with the Assistant U.S. Attorney handling the investigation and proffer a defense with supporting documents—contracts showing you were owed the money, email chains showing no threats were made, legal memos explaining why you’re conduct was lawful. Sometimes this results in the investigation being closed without charges.

If the FBI contacts you for an interview, decline without an attorney present. People think, “I’ll just explain my side and this will go away.” That’s almost never what happens. What usually happens is you make statements that the government later uses against you, or you say something slightly inconsistent with other evidence, and now you’ve given them a false statement charge on top of everything else.

The 72-Hour Post-Arrest Window

If your arrested (or you turn yourself in after indictment), the next 72 hours are the most critical period of you’re case. Here’s why:

Detention Hearing (Day 3-5): The government will argue you should be detained without bail pending trial. If you loose this hearing, you’re in custody for the next 12-18 months while you’re case proceeds. That makes trial preparation nearly impossible—your meeting with you’re attorney in jail conference rooms for limited hours, you can’t help investigate witnesses or gather documents, and juries unconsciously bias against defendants in custody.

The record created at you’re detention hearing shapes everything that follows. If the judge finds that your a danger to the community or a flight risk, that creates a presumption that follows you through the case. If you win release, that signals the court views the case as less serious.

To win release, you’re attorney needs to present a release plan immediately: family ties to the community, employment, property ownership, surrender of passport, GPS monitoring, whatever it takes. This requires preparation, which is why you need an attorney retained within 24-48 hours of arrest.

First Impressions: Federal prosecutors typically make there initial plea offers within 2-3 weeks of arraignment. If you don’t have an attorney during this window, you can’t evaluate the offer or negotiate. The first offer isn’t always the best offer, but sometimes it is—especially if the government’s case is strong and they know it.

Arraignment Through Discovery (Weeks 2-8)

You’re initial appearance and arraignment usually occur within 7-10 days of arrest. You’ll enter a plea of not guilty (even if you plan to eventually plead guilty—you need time to evaluate the evidence first). The court sets a schedule for motions, discovery, and potentially trial.

Discovery production begins within 2-4 weeks. As discussed earlier, pay attention to how much discovery the government produces. Overwhelming discovery usually means a strong case. Sparse discovery might indicate weaknesses.

This is also when you’re attorney begins there investigation: interviewing potential witnesses, reviewing documents, consulting experts on interstate commerce or other technical elements, developing the defense theory.

Pre-Trial Motions (Months 3-6)

Motions to dismiss typically need to be filed within 30-45 days of arraignment, though courts sometimes grant extensions. This includes interstate commerce challenges, Ciminelli motions, venue challenges, and statute of limitations defenses.

Suppression motions (if there were searches or seizures) also get filed during this window.

The court’s rulings on these motions often determine whether the case goes to trial or resolves through plea. If you win a motion to dismiss, the case is over (though the government can appeal or seek to re-indict with different charges). If you loose all motions, you’re evaluating trial vs. plea with the knowledge that you’re defenses have been rejected at the motion stage.

Trial or Plea (Months 6-12)

Most federal Hobbs Act cases resolve through plea agreements. Only about 10-15% go to trial. But that doesn’t mean trial is always wrong—it depends on the strength of you’re defenses and the sentence your facing.

If you proceed to trial, jury selection (voir dire) typically takes 1-2 days. The trial itself usually lasts 5-10 days for a straightforward Hobbs Act case, though complex public corruption cases can run weeks.

If you plead guilty, you waive you’re right to appeal most issues (except sentencing guidelines calculations and some constitutional claims). Make sure you understand what your giving up before accepting a plea.

Sentencing (2-3 Months Post-Conviction)

After a guilty verdict or guilty plea, the probation office prepares a Presentence Investigation Report (PSR). This document calculates you’re guidelines range, describes you’re criminal history, and includes information about you’re background, family, employment, etc.

You’re attorney will recieve the PSR and can file objections if the guidelines calculations are wrong, if criminal history is inaccurate, or if any facts are incorrect. The sentencing hearing is were the judge resolves those objections and imposes sentence.

Federal judges have very limited discretion to depart from the guidelines. Unlike state court, were a judge might give you probation based on your good character despite the conviction, federal judges are constrained by the guidelines range unless there are extraordinary circumstances.

Sentencing Reality: What Your Actually Facing

Let’s talk about what actually happens if you loose at trial or plead guilty. The statutory maximum for Hobbs Act violations is 20 years in federal prison. But most defendants don’t recieve anywhere near that.

The 20-Year Maximum (And What You’ll Really Get)

The 20-year statutory maximum is reserved for the most serious cases: violent extortion, extortion involving firearms, large-scale public corruption, or defendants with extensive criminal histories. Most first-time offenders convicted of non-violent Hobbs Act extortion receive 3-7 years, not 20.

But don’t take false comfort from that. Three to seven years in federal prison is still devastating. Your career is over. You’re family life is destroyed. You’ll serve at least 85% of the sentence (federal inmates must serve at least 85% before release, unlike state systems with parole). Seven years means six years in custody.

How the Guidelines Actually Work

Federal sentencing is governed by the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines §2B3.2. Here’s how it works:

Base Offense Level: Extortion starts at a base offense level of 20.

Enhancements (increases):

• Dollar loss: The higher the amount extorted (or attempted to be extorted), the higher the enhancement. $10,000-$25,000 adds +2 levels. $250,000-$550,000 adds +8 levels. Over $3.5 million adds +16 levels.
• Sophisticated means: If the extortion involved sophisticated concealment or multiple transactions designed to avoid detection, add +2 levels.
• Use of firearm: If you possessed or brandished a firearm during the offense, add +5 to +7 levels.
• Public official: If you were a public official committing extortion under color of official right, add +4 levels.
• Vulnerable victim: If the victim was particularly vulnerable (elderly, disabled, etc.), add +2 levels.

After calculating you’re total offense level, the guidelines provide a sentencing range based on that level and you’re criminal history category (I-VI). Category I is no prior criminal record. Category VI is extensive criminal history.

Example: First-time offender (Criminal History Category I) convicted of extorting $100,000.

• Base offense level: 20
• Dollar loss enhancement ($95,000-$150,000): +6 levels
• Total offense level: 26
• Acceptance of responsibility (if guilty plea): -3 levels
• Final offense level: 23
• Category I, Level 23: 46-57 months (approximately 4-5 years)

Now add enhancements if applicable:

• If the defendant was a public official: +4 levels (now level 27) = 70-87 months (approximately 6-7 years)
• If sophisticated means were used: +2 levels (now level 29) = 87-108 months (approximately 7-9 years)
• If a firearm was involved: +5 levels (now level 34) = 151-188 months (approximately 12-15 years)

As you can see, the enhancements add up quickly. This is why the specific facts of you’re case—how much money was involved, whether your a public official, whether a weapon was present—drive the sentence much more then general “good character.”

What Doesn’t Help (Much)

First-time defendants often assume that there clean record, family circumstances, or community ties will result in leniency. In state court, those factors matter alot. In federal court, they matter very little.

Federal judges are sympathetic. They often say at sentencing, “This is a tragic case. The defendant has no prior record and strong family support. But my hands are tied by the guidelines.” And they really are—federal judges have very limited authority to depart from the guidelines absent extraordinary circumstances.

What doesn’t help:

• Character letters from family and friends: The judge will read them, and they might influence conditions of supervised release, but they rarely change the prison sentence.
• Employment history and community ties: Relevant for whether you get pre-trial release, but not for the length of sentence.
• Age or health: Unless you have a terminal illness or are so elderly/infirm that imprisonment would be effectively a death sentence, health issues don’t provide grounds for departure.
• Family hardship: The fact that your incarceration will harm your spouse or children is not, by itself, grounds for departure. Every defendant’s family suffers when they go to prison—that’s not extraordinary.

This is harsh, but you need to understand it: federal sentencing is driven by the offense level calculation, not by who you are as a person. Your character matters when evaluating whether to hire you for a job or invite you to a party. It doesn’t matter much when calculating how many months you spend in federal prison.

What Does Help

The things that actually reduce federal sentences:

• Acceptance of responsibility: Pleading guilty early and not minimizing your conduct typically results in a 3-level reduction. This is the single most reliable way to reduce you’re sentence.
• Substantial assistance: Cooperating with the government and providing testimony that leads to other prosecutions can result in a discretionary departure (reduction below the guidelines). But as discussed earlier, this requires having something valuable to trade.
• Partial acquittal on some counts: If the jury convicts on 2 counts but acquits on 8 counts, you’re only sentenced for the 2 counts. The guidelines calculation is based on the counts of conviction, so fewer counts = lower guideline range.
• Safety valve (doesn’t exist for Hobbs Act): Drug offenders can sometimes get “safety valve” reductions if they’re first-time, non-violent offenders who cooperate. No such provision exists for Hobbs Act defendants. This is a critical difference—federal judges have virtually zero ability to depart downward for first-time Hobbs Act offenders unless there’s substantial assistance or extraordinary circumstances.

Supervised Release and Collateral Consequences

After you serve you’re prison sentence, you’ll be on supervised release for typically 3 years. This is similar to parole but with stricter conditions:

• Regular check-ins with a probation officer
• Drug testing (even though drugs weren’t involved in you’re offense)
• Travel restrictions (you need permission to leave the district)
• Employment reporting requirements
• Restrictions on internet use and financial transactions (especially in fraud or extortion cases)
• Prohibition on associating with felons

Violating supervised release conditions can result in re-incarceration.

Beyond prison and supervised release, collateral consequences include:

• Professional licenses: Doctors, lawyers, accountants, real estate agents, contractors—most professional licensing boards will revoke or suspend licenses for felony convictions, especially crimes involving dishonesty or extortion.
• Immigration consequences: Non-citizens convicted of aggravated felonies (which includes extortion) face mandatory deportation with no possibility of relief. If your not a U.S. citizen, a Hobbs Act conviction likely means removal from the country after you serve you’re sentence.
• Asset forfeiture: The government can seize proceeds of the extortion through civil or criminal forfeiture. If you extorted $100,000, the government will take it back plus potentially other assets involved in the offense.
• Restitution: Courts can order you to pay restitution to victims, which becomes a debt that follows you after release.
• Firearm prohibition: Convicted felons cannot possess firearms. This is a lifetime prohibition.

Picking You’re Attorney: Trial Specialist vs. Plea Negotiator

Not all federal defense attorneys are equal. Some are plea mills who handle high volumes of cases and negotiate quick guilty pleas. Some are trial specialists who take cases to verdict. You need to know the difference and pick the right attorney for you’re situation.

Not All Federal Defense Attorneys Are The Same

When you Google “federal criminal defense attorney,” you’ll find hundreds of firms claiming they “aggressively defend federal charges” and “fight for your rights.” Most of them are competent at negotiating plea agreements. Far fewer have actual trial experience in federal court, and even fewer have specific experience with Hobbs Act prosecutions.

The attorney you need depends on you’re situation:

• If the evidence is overwhelming and trial would be futile, you need a plea negotiator—someone with relationships with Assistant U.S. Attorneys who can negotiate the best possible plea agreement.
• If you have genuine defenses (interstate commerce challenges, Ciminelli issues, property was legally owed, etc.), you need a trial specialist—someone who’s actually tried Hobbs Act cases to verdict and knows how to win them.

Most defendants need someone who can do both: evaluate defenses honestly, file strong pre-trial motions, but also negotiate effectively if trial isn’t the right strategy.

Questions to Ask Prospective Attorneys

When your interviewing attorneys (and you should interview multiple attorneys before retaining one), ask these specific questions:

1. How many Hobbs Act cases have you handled? Not “federal cases” generally—Hobbs Act specifically. The defenses are different from drug cases, fraud cases, or other federal prosecutions.
2. How many of those cases went to trial, and what were the outcomes? If an attorney has handled 50 Hobbs Act cases but never tried one to verdict, they’re a plea negotiator, not a trial attorney. That’s fine if you need a plea negotiation, but not if your considering trial.
3. Do you have experience in this specific federal district and circuit? Federal practice is local. An attorney who practices primarily in the Southern District of New York might not know the judges, prosecutors, or local practices in the Central District of California. Circuit law also matters—an attorney should know whether your case is in a circuit with favorable or unfavorable precedent.
4. Will you personally handle my case, or will it be delegated to an associate or junior attorney? Large firms sometimes advertise senior partners but assign cases to junior associates. You need to know who’s actually doing the work.
5. What’s your theory of defense for my specific situation? The attorney should articulate a specific strategy based on the facts you’ve shared—not generic “we’ll fight for you” language. If they can’t explain how they’d challenge the interstate commerce element, or why Ciminelli might apply to you’re case, or what weaknesses exist in the government’s theory, they might not have thought through you’re defense carefully.
6. What are my realistic options—trial, plea, or cooperation? A good attorney will be honest about the strengths and weaknesses of you’re case. If they guarantee a dismissal or acquittal, that’s a red flag. No one can guarantee outcomes in federal court.

Red Flags

Watch out for these warning signs when evaluating attorneys:

• Guaranteeing outcomes: “I’ll get this dismissed” or “We’ll definitely win at trial” are signs of an attorney who’s either inexperienced or dishonest. No attorney can guarantee outcomes.
• Not discussing cooperation vs. trial vs. plea pros and cons: You need an honest assessment of all three options, not just a sales pitch for trial.
• Pushing immediate guilty plea without investigating defenses: Some attorneys assume federal cases can’t be won and push clients into pleas without exploring post-Ciminelli motions, commerce challenges, or other defenses.
• No trial experience in the past 5 years: Federal practice evolves. An attorney who hasn’t tried a case since 2019 is out of practice, especially with recent changes like Ciminelli.
• Cookie-cutter defense strategy: If the attorney is describing the same defense for you’re case that they’d use for every Hobbs Act defendant, they’re not tailoring strategy to you’re specific facts.

Cost Reality

Federal criminal defense is expensive. Expect to pay:

• Plea negotiation (no trial): $50,000-$100,000 for a straightforward case
• Pre-trial motions + trial: $150,000-$250,000+ depending on complexity
• Complex multi-defendant public corruption trial: $300,000-$500,000+

This isn’t price gouging. Federal defense work is time-intensive: reviewing thousands of pages of discovery, consulting experts, filing motions, conducting legal research on circuit-specific issues, preparing for trial, etc.

Is it worth it? That depends on whether you have genuine defenses and whether trial is a viable strategy. If the evidence is overwhelming and your facing 5 years with a plea or 7 years after trial, spending $200,000 to go to trial doesn’t make financial sense. But if you have strong interstate commerce challenges, or if Ciminelli provides a real path to dismissal, or if partial acquittal could reduce you’re sentence from 10 years to 4 years, then aggressive defense is worth the investment.

Final Thoughts: The Decisions That Actually Matter

Federal Hobbs Act charges are among the most serious allegations you can face. The interstate commerce element means federal prosecutors with unlimited resources, federal judges bound by sentencing guidelines, and potential prison sentences that measure in years, not months.

But these cases aren’t unwinnable. The Ciminelli decision opened new defense paths that didn’t exist three years ago. Cryptocurrency cases have proof problems that create reasonable doubt. Partial acquittals reduce sentences significantly even when you don’t win complete acquittals. And the interstate commerce element—which seems impossible to challenge—is actually weaker then prosecutors want you to believe, especially for local business disputes.

What you do in the next 72 hours matters more then what you do in the next 72 days. The detention hearing will determine whether your preparing for trial from home or from a jail cell. The first plea offer might be better then later offers, or it might be a lowball designed to scare you into pleading before your attorney investigates defenses. You need to make informed decisions based on the specific evidence in you’re case, not generic advice.

Find an attorney who’s actually tried Hobbs Act cases—not just handled federal crimes generally. Ask about circuit-specific strategies, especially if your case involves campaign contributions and there’s a circuit split on quid pro quo requirements. Understand whether cooperation makes sense in you’re situation (it usually doesn’t in single-defendant cases) or whether acceptance of responsibility is mathematically better.

And demand honest assessment of your trial odds. Most federal Hobbs Act cases end in convictions—that’s the statistical reality. But yours might be in the 15-20% that result in dismissals, acquittals, or partial acquittals that dramatically reduce sentencing exposure. You won’t know unless you’re attorney actually investigates the defenses instead of assuming federal cases can’t be won.

Your decisions now determine whether your facing 20 years, 5 years, or possibly walking away without a conviction. The stakes couldn’t be higher. Choose carefully, act quickly, and don’t let fear paralyze you into making bad decisions in that critical first week after arrest or indictment.