US v. Analetto

Conviction for knowingly participating in the use of extortionate means to collect or attempt to collect an extension of credit, under 18 U.S.C. section 894, is affirmed over defendant’s challenges that:

1. the District Court chose the wrong remedy for the prosecution’s gender-based discrimination in the use of peremptory challenges during jury selection;
2. the evidence at trial was insufficient to support a finding that his voicemail message conveyed an implicit threat of violence and because the government failed to put on any other evidence that could suffice to prove that he had done so; and
3. the District Court’s erred in its refusal to instruct the jury regarding whether defendant specifically intended to cause fear in victim and whether defendant was too intoxicated at the time he left the voicemail message to have had such a specific intent.