Taylor v. United States (14-6166)

argument 14-6166

Taylor v. United States

Supreme Court of the United States 52 min 4 speakers 8 chapters transcribed 6 days ago official recording ↗

▲ 0

Transcript

jump: chapters · speakers · find in transcript

Transcript

Transcript generated automatically by AI and may contain errors.

What is the Hobbes Act and what are its two essential elements?

John G. Roberts 0:00

We'll hear argument first this morning, case fourteen six one six six six six six six six six six six six, Taylor versus United States. Mr. Jones.

Unknown 0:13

Mr Chief Justice, and may it please the court. The Hobbes Act has two elements. The first requires that the accused to obtain property from another by either extortion or robbery.

Unknown 0:34

The second is a jurisdictional element. And that the consequence of either the extortion or the robbery creates an interference with commerce. The effect on commerce is the jurisdictional element of the crime. and like all elements, must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. through the introduction of particularised evidence necessary to establish this element. In the case in this case, the government was not required to prove the effect on commerce element, which ultimately resulted in the conviction of m Mr Taylor. One of the things you say in your brief is that You were not even given the opportunity. To show Did the victims dealt exclusively in homegrown marijuana? If you If you had that opportunity How will you have shown?

Unknown 1:36

that this the marijuana in question was grown. in Virginia rather than some other place, some other state. Your Honor, th their In all likelihood I would have either called as a witness a retired DEA agent or an ATF agent or a retired local police officer who had years of experience in that field. uh qualifying that person Virginia uh is is a state like all the other states that has the ability to grow marijuana in states It's been going on for years and years and years. Uh there's not necessarily we we cited in our brief uh not only the DEA statistics for a time period that showed not only the amount of marijuana that was subject to the eradication Uh plan of DEA. uh in Virginia but also s a couple of local uh news articles and events where in Bodatorque County I think the most current one was two thousand thirteen, about the time we were before the Fourth Circuit

Unknown 2:52

and that could show that It could have been grown. But you could say that for every state in the Union. But you made that you said you wanted to submit proof that the victims dealt exclusively in homegrown marijuana. And since every uh other state also has marijuana dealers, how could you how could you show exclusively that the this marijuana came exclusively? Well f f for one thing, uh It could have cross examined them on on that point, but pursuant to the motion in limity, I think trial counsel at that point believe that he he was precluded from even going into that area with with the victims.

Anthony M. Kennedy 3:39

Well Mr. Jones, suppose you had been able to show this. Suppose you had been able to show that it was a dealer who dealt in intrastate marijuana exclusively. What difference would that have made under the terms of the Hobbes Act?

Unknown 3:54

Under the time under the terms of the hot absack Y the government would have borne the proof of going forward and and showing an effect. On on interstate commerce we have.

Anthony M. Kennedy 4:07

The Hobbes Act requires the government to show an effect on interstate commerce. As you said in your opening statement, the Hobbes Act only requires an effect on commerce. And then commerce is defined. Commerce means all commerce over which the United States has jurisdiction. Now for sure the United States has jurisdiction over interstate commerce But under RAICH it also has jurisdiction over intrastate Drug trafficking. And so if you just sort of put the pieces of the statute together It seems to make it completely irrelevant. Whether the drug trafficking was intrastate or interstate, because in either case It was commerce over which the United States has jurisdiction.

Unknown 4:54

I think the difference between uh I think what Hobbes address uh excuse me, what Rach addressed Uh was of course the uh controlled substance act. The controlled substance act is is a matter of regulation of the co of interstate commerce and not so much did not address as as a separate issue the effect on on commerce. So a a what the Hobbes Act in our view addresses is the effect. not so much the regulation. A a reading of of the Rach case, the the word