Summary

Portrait of Earl Warren Earl Warren United States v. Nardello — Opinion of the Court

The language of the Travel Act, 'whoever' crosses state lines or uses interstate facilities, includes private persons as well as public officials. [11]
Appellees argue that Congress' decision not to define extortion combined with its decision to prohibit only extortion in violation of state law compels the conclusion that peculiar versions of state terminology are controlling. Since in Pennsylvania a distinction is maintained between extortion and blackmail with only the latter term covering appellees' activities, [12] it follows that the Travel Act does not reach the conduct charged.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of Earl Warren Earl Warren United States v. Nardello — Opinion of the Court

Bribery has traditionally focused upon corrupt activities by public officials. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 201 218; 3 F. Wharton's Criminal Law and Procedure §§ 1380-1391 (R. Anderson ed. 1957) . Since Pennsylvania's extortion statute covers corrupt acts by public officials, the Government suggests that appellees' construction of 'extortion' renders the bribery prohibition superfluous.↑ Several cases cast some doubt upon the vitality of this distinction as they indicate that in Pennsylvania the terms extortion and blackmail are considered synonymous.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature