A federal jury acquitted Suffolk County Sheriff Steven Tompkins on both extortion counts on September 2, after deliberating only hours.
We covered this trial closely, and we argued in print that the defense’s central concession, that Tompkins never explicitly threatened anyone, addressed a prong of the statute the government had not charged. That analysis was legally correct and the jury acquitted anyway. It is worth explaining why both things are true.
The verdict
Tompkins faced two counts of extortion under color of official right under the Hobbs Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1951.
The government’s theory was that he pressured cannabis executive Frank Perullo into selling him $50,000 in pre-IPO Ascend Wellness stock in 2019, then leaned on his office to recover the money when the shares fell.
The jury rejected it, and quickly. Deliberations lasted hours, not days.
Martin Weinberg defended. His case was that Perullo was a sophisticated businessman who was not intimidated, that Ascend’s cannabis license was never actually at risk from the sheriff’s office, and that the government had purchased Perullo’s testimony with an immunity agreement.
The prosecution was handled by Assistant United States Attorney Dustin Chao and Lauren Maynard. One outlet described Maynard as an assistant district attorney, which would be unusual in a federal prosecution; we could not resolve that.
Where our analysis was right, and where it was incomplete
Before closings we wrote that Perullo’s concession, that Tompkins never explicitly threatened to pull the sheriff’s department reentry partnership, mattered less than the coverage suggested. That remains accurate as a matter of law.
The Hobbs Act defines two distinct forms of extortion. One requires fear. The other, extortion under color of official right, does not. Under Evans v. United States, 504 U.S. 255 (1992), the government “need only show that a public official has obtained a payment to which he was not entitled, knowing that the payment was made in return for official acts,” and the offense is complete when the payment is received.
So the absence of a threat was never going to be fatal to the government’s case on its own.
What we underweighted was the second element.
We wrote at the time that the color of official right prong “has its own demanding element, and it is where the defense’s real argument lives,” and identified the question as: what official act was being bought? That was the right question. We treated it as the harder half of the case. The jury appears to have treated it as the whole case.
The government had to prove Tompkins obtained property he was not entitled to knowing it was given in return for official acts. The First Circuit describes these prosecutions as requiring proof of “the sale of public favors for private gain.”
If there was no public favor to sell, there is no offense, threat or no threat.
The testimony that did it
Andrea Cabral testified for the defense. She is the former Suffolk sheriff, Tompkins’s predecessor and longtime friend, and later Ascend’s chief executive in Massachusetts.
Her evidence went directly to the element the government could least afford to lose: the sheriff’s office partnership was not critical to Ascend’s state approvals or licensing, and withdrawing it would not have jeopardized them.
Three other Ascend witnesses said earlier in the trial that they felt no pressure and that nobody suggested the company’s license depended on the sheriff’s goodwill.
Put together, the defense did not really argue that the sheriff made no ask. It argued he had nothing to sell. That is an attack on the quid, not the quo, and it is the argument that wins these cases.
Why federal corruption cases against elected officials keep failing
This verdict fits a pattern that has been building for a decade.
In McDonnell v. United States, 579 U.S. 550 (2016), the Supreme Court unanimously narrowed what counts as an “official act.” Setting up a meeting, hosting an event, or calling another official is not enough. The act must involve a formal exercise of governmental power on something specific and pending.
That holding took a great deal of ordinary political favor-trading outside the reach of federal corruption law, and it has produced acquittals and reversals across the country since.
Two other features of this case are common to the genre. The central witness testified under an immunity agreement, which hands the defense a ready explanation for why he is saying what he is saying. And the relationship between the two men was genuinely close, documented in their own affectionate messages, which the government used to show the ask was effective and the defense used to show it was a friendship rather than a shakedown.
Juries in these cases are asked to distinguish corruption from politics between friends. They often decline.
What happens to the sheriff now
Tompkins has been on leave from the elected office since his arrest in August 2025. He has been sheriff since 2013.
An acquittal ends the criminal case permanently. Double jeopardy bars any retrial on these counts, and there is no government appeal from a jury’s verdict of not guilty.
It does not by itself return him to the job. A Massachusetts sheriff can be removed or suspended only by a majority of the justices of the Supreme Judicial Court, which is the same rule that meant a conviction would not have removed him automatically either. His term runs to January 2029, and the seat was not on this year’s ballot.
Our earlier reporting examined his record in office, his qualifications, and the department’s performance. None of that reporting turned on the criminal charges, and the acquittal does not disturb it. But the charges are resolved, and resolved in his favor, and anyone reading that earlier coverage is entitled to know it.
Common questions
What was Steven Tompkins charged with?
Two counts of extortion under color of official right under the Hobbs Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1951. Prosecutors alleged he pressured a cannabis executive into selling him $50,000 in pre-IPO stock and later sought to recover the money when the shares lost value.
Was he found not guilty?
Yes. A federal jury acquitted him on both counts on September 2, 2026, after deliberating only hours.
Can he be tried again?
No. An acquittal is final. Double jeopardy bars retrial on the same counts and the government cannot appeal a jury’s not guilty verdict.
Does he get his job back?
The acquittal ends the criminal case but does not itself restore him. He has been on leave since his arrest in August 2025, and a Massachusetts sheriff may be removed or suspended only by a majority of the justices of the Supreme Judicial Court. His term runs to January 2029.
Why did the case fail if the government did not have to prove a threat?
Because the other element failed. Extortion under color of official right still requires proof that the official obtained something knowing it was given in exchange for official acts. Defense testimony that the sheriff’s partnership was not critical to the company’s licensing meant, in effect, that there was no official favor to sell.
Verdict and trial details as reported by WBUR, CommonWealth Beacon, and Boston 25 News, September 2 and 3, 2026. Legal framework from 18 U.S.C. § 1951; Evans v. United States, 504 U.S. 255 (1992); and McDonnell v. United States, 579 U.S. 550 (2016). The presiding judge was not named in available accounts. General legal information, not legal advice.