US-CA9 · jury_instructions
9th Cir. Model Jury Instr. (Criminal) 9.5
Hobbs Act—Extortion or Attempted Extortion by Force (18 U.S.C. § 1951)
The defendant is charged in [Count _______ of] the indictment with [attempted] extortion by force, violence, or fear in violation of Section 1951 of Title 18 of the United States Code. For the defendant to be found guilty of that charge, the government must prove each of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
First, the defendant [[induced] [intended to induce]] [name of victim] to part with property by the wrongful use of actual or threatened force, violence, or fear;
Second, the defendant obtained the property with [name of victim]’s consent;
Third, the defendant acted with the intent to obtain the property; [and]
Fourth, commerce from one state to another [was] [would have been] affected in some way[.] [; and]
[Fifth, the defendant did something that was a substantial step toward committing the crime.
A “substantial step” is conduct that strongly corroborates a defendant’s intent to commit the crime. To constitute a substantial step, a defendant’s act or actions must unequivocally demonstrate that the crime will take place unless interrupted by independent circumstances. Mere preparation is not a substantial step toward committing the crime.
Jurors do not need to agree unanimously as to which particular act or actions constituted a substantial step toward the commission of a crime.]
Provenance
- Source
- ce9.uscourts.gov
- Retrieved
- 2026-08-20
- Edition
- 2026-08-20
- Content hash
04697e33bc41460aa1967c7669909cb70dd6834f078abc10d3e57fe341b17c33
The link goes to the issuing authority’s own document — the one we read to produce this record. Where a source publishes whole titles rather than sections, your browser may need a moment to jump to the provision.
Unofficial copy of government-published law, reproduced from official sources with full provenance. Not an official publication; verify against official sources before relying on it in a filing. Records in the 'guidance' corpus, and only that corpus, are sub-regulatory (interpretive guidelines, survey procedures) and are not binding law. Validity bounds follow each jurisdiction's declared temporalBasis.