When-campaign-contributions-are-not-at-issue,-the-quid-pro-quo-need-not-be-explicit

question presented is: When a prosecution for Hobbs Act extortion “under color of official right” and for honest services fraud bribery is premised on campaign contributions, may the jury find a promise of official action in exchange for the payment to be “explicit” (as this Court requires), even if that promise is not “express,” as held by the court below and one other Circuit, or is an unexpressed promise necessarily other than “explicit,” and thus insufficient, as held by four Circuits? 2. In Evans v. United States, 504 U.S. 225 (1992), this Court held that the required quid pro quo in a Hobbs Act extortion case could be established by the receipt of “a payment to which [the official] was not entitled, knowing that the payment was made in return for official acts.” A closely divided Court construed “under color of official right” to permit conviction if the official’s position was the reason for the payment, dispensing with any requirement of proving an act of inducement. The question presented is: Should Evans v. United States, 504 U.S. 225 (1992), be overruled in part, because the phrase “under color of official right” — as used in the law of extortion as of the time that the Hobbs Act was enacted — applied only to a pretense of entitlement to the payment by virtue of the recipient’s position? LIST OF ALL PARTIES The caption of the case in this Court contains the names of all parties to this petition (petitioner Davis and respondent United States). Petitioner had a codefendant at trial, John Green, but their appeals were not consolidated. -ii