Murder for Hire

United States v. Chong, 419 F.3d 1076 (9th Cir. 2005)

There was insufficient evidence that the “hitmen” were offered anything of value in exchange for attempting to kill the victim. The hitmen were members of a gang and the defendant was the leader. There was no evidence that the hitmen were offered any quid pro quo for killing the victim.

United States v. Frampton, 382 F.3d 213 (2d Cir. 2004)

The hit man shot the victim in exchange for “a favor in the future” from the person who hired him to kill the victim. This “favor in the future” was never identified. The Second Circuit affirmed the district court which granted a judgment of acquittal on the murder for hire prosecution. In order to be prosecuted under § 1958, the murder must be in exchange for “anything of pecuniary value.” A favor in the future does not qualify.

United States v. Hernandez, 141 F.3d 1042 (11th Cir. 1998)

To be guilty of conspiring to commit murder-for-hire the government must show an agreement by two or more persons to achieve the unlawful purpose of murder-for-hire, the defendant’s knowing and voluntary participation in the agreement, and an overt act committed by any one of the conspirators in furtherance of the conspiratorial objective. In this case, the court found insufficient evidence, where the defendant was present when other family members discussed a murder-for-hire, but he did not participate in the discussion or participate in the actual homicide.

United States v. Delpit, 94 F.3d 1134 (8th Cir. 1996)

The elements of the murder for hire statute, 18 U.S.C. §1958, as applied in this case, are that the defendant caused another to travel in interstate commerce, intending that a murder be committed in violation of state law, and that the murder was to be committed for hire. Here, one of the defendants joined the murder plot after the “hit man” had already traveled in interstate commerce. Thus, the crime of murder for hire had already been accomplished. While the defendant was guilty of participating in a state law murder, she was not guilty of participating in the federal offense. She could not be convicted of aiding and abetting the crime, because the crime was completed – the hit man had already traveled in interstate commerce – before she became involved. The same rule applied to bar a conspiracy conviction.

United States v. Wicklund, 114 F.3d 151 (10th Cir. 1997)

The defendant asked a friend to kill the ex-spouse of his wife, but never had any agreement that he would pay his friend for doing so. The defendant, himself, also was not being paid to do so (for example, by his new wife). This evidence was insufficient to support a murderfor-hire conviction under 18 U.S.C. §1958. There must be some “contracted-for” pecuniary gain associated with the plan to murder the victim. It is not enough that there may be some pecuniary gain associated with the death of the victim (such as a termination of the surviving spouse’s obligation to pay child support).

United States v. Sullivan, 809 F.Supp. 934 (N.D.Ga. 1992)

Defendant’s motion for judgment of acquittal on all counts of this murder for hire prosecution was granted. Though there was evidence of defendant’s participation in the murder of his wife, there was insufficient evidence that the particular phone calls set forth in the separate counts of the indictment were related to the murder for hire scheme. The district court declined to decide whether the phone call must “facilitate” the murder or just “relate to” the murder. On either standard, the government’s proof was insufficient.