“The distinction from bribery is therefore . . . the fear and lack of voluntariness on the part of the victim”
How later courts described this case
- “The distinction from bribery is therefore . . . the fear and lack of voluntariness on the part of the victim”
- “[Wjhen there has been publicity that would possibly prejudice the defendant’s case if it reached the jurors, the court should first ask the jurors what information they have received. Then it should ask about the prejudicial effect and it should make an independent determination whether the juror’s impartiality was destroyed.”
- "[W]hen there has been publicity that would possibly prejudice the defendant's case if it reached the jurors, the court should first ask the jurors what information they have received. Then it should ask about the prejudicial effect and it should make an independent determination whether the juror's impartiality was destroyed."
- “The fact that relations between the victims and the extorters were often cor- dial is not inconsistent with extortion. Knowing that they were at the mercy of the Attorney General’s office, it is a fair inference that the victims felt that to save their businesses they had to keep the extorters satisfied.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
ON PETITIONS FOR REHEARING AND PETITIONS FOR REHEARING EN BANC
PER CURIAM:
The Petitions for Rehearing are denied and the Court having been polled at the request of one of the members of the Court and a majority of the Circuit Judges who are in regular active service not having voted in favor of it, (Rule 35 Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure; Local Fifth Circuit Rule 12) the Petitions for Rehearing En Banc 1 are also denied.
RIVES, Circuit Judge, dissents from the denial of the petitions for rehearing by the panel.
. Circuit Judges Gewin, Coleman and God-bold did not participate in the consideration or action on the petition for rehearing en banc.