CADY, Justice.

In this appeal, the defendant claims there was insufficient evidence to support the assault element of his conviction for second-degree robbery of a convenience store, during which the store clerk confronted him at the door of the store as he *532was attempting to exit following a theft. In resolving the issue, the State asks that we declare the crime of assault to be a general-intent offense and submits a well-researched and thorough brief to support its position.. We conclude substantial evidence supports the conviction and decline to consider the additional question raised by the State. We affirm the judgment and sentence of the district court.

I.Background Facts and Proceedings

On March 28, 2004, Larry Keeton entered a convenience store in Marshalltown and purchased a pack of cigarettes. When the store clerk opened the cash register drawer to make change, Keeton reached over the counter and grabbed the twenty-dollar bills from the register. He stated: “I’ll take that.” Keeton then attempted to exit the store, but the clerk rushed to the door and blocked his path by standing in front of the double doors. She also tried to grab the cash from Keeton’s hand as he approached, but he would not release the money from his hand. Their hands touched when she attempted to retrieve the money. Keeton then briefly backed away from the door and extended his arm. The clerk realized she could not keep him in the store until police arrived, and stepped aside to allow Keeton to leave the store. As he exited through the door, she snatched the hat from his head in anger. The incident was recorded by surveillance video.

Keeton was arrested and charged with robbery in the second degree in violation of Iowa Code section 711.1(1) (2003). He waived his right to a jury trial, and the case proceeded to a bench trial. The district court found Keeton guilty of second-degree robbery and sentenced him to a term of imprisonment not to exceed ten years.

Keeton appeals. He claims there was insufficient evidence presented at trial to support the assault element of robbery.

II. Standard of Review

‘We review sufficiency-of-the-evidenee claims for correction of errors at law. We uphold a verdict if substantial evidence supports it. ‘Evidence is substantial if it would convince a rational fact finder that the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.’ Substantial evidence must do more than raise suspicion or speculation. We consider all record evidence not just the evidence supporting guilt when we make sufficiency-of-the-evidence determinations. However, in making such determinations, we also view the ‘evidence in the light most favorable to the State, including legitimate inferences and presumptions that may fairly and reasonably be deduced from the record evidence.’ ”

State v. Williams, 695 N.W.2d 23, 27 (Iowa 2005) (quoting State v. Quinn, 691 N.W.2d 403, 407 (Iowa 2005)).

III. Discussion

A sufflciency-of-evidence claim on appeal not only requires us to review all the relevant evidence, but also the governing law. Ultimately, we must apply the law to the evidence to determine if the evidence is sufficient to support the conviction.

Section 711.1 defines robbery as follows:

A person commits a robbery when, having the intent to commit a theft, the person does any of the following acts to assist or further the commission of the intended theft or the person’s escape from the scene thereof with or without the stolen property:

1. Commits an assault upon another.

*5332. Threatens another with or purposely puts another in fear of immediate serious injury.

3. Threatens to commit immediately any forcible felony.

It is immaterial to the question of guilt or innocence of robbery that property was or was not actually stolen.

Iowa Code § 711.1. The State charged Keeton under the first paragraph of the statute, commission of an assault. The State claimed at trial that Keeton committed an assault on the store clerk in furtherance of his escape from the convenience store.

We look to the definition of assault in section 708.1 to consider whether a robbery occurred under section 711.1(1). See State v. Spears, 312 N.W.2d 79, 80 (Iowa 1981). Section 708.1 provides, in relevant part:

An assault as defined in this section is a general intent crime. A person commits an assault when, without justification, the person does any of the following:

1. Any act which is intended to cause pain or injury to, or which is intended to result in physical contact which will be insulting or offensive to another, coupled with the apparent ability to execute the act.

2. Any act which is intended to place another in fear of immediate physical contact which will be painful, injurious, insulting, or offensive, coupled with the apparent ability to execute the act.

3. Intentionally points any firearm toward another, or displays in a threatening manner any dangerous weapon toward another.

Iowa Code § 708.1. In this case, the State relied upon the first two alternatives of assault, and the district court found Kee-ton committed assault under both alternatives.

Although the State asks us to resolve the sufficiency-of-evidenee claim by considering section 708.1(l)-(2) to only require a general intent element, the specific issue on appeal in this case only requires us to decide if the evidence in the case satisfies the statutory elements of the crime of assault. This question can be decided without considering whether the statutory language used to define the crime of assault requires a specific or general intent. See In re M.S., 10 Cal.4th 698, 42 Cal.Rptr.2d 355, 896 P.2d 1365, 1383-84 (1995) (Mosk, J., concurring) (“Indeed, ‘specific intent’ and ‘general intent’ do not define criminal mental states. Rather, they are essentially ‘labels’ attached to particular crimes to identify them as admitting (‘specific intent’) or not admitting (‘general intent’) the defense of voluntary intoxication. There is no need to attach one of the labels here. The issue is not implicated before this court. Indeed, there is a need not to attach either label. ‘Specific intent’ and ‘general intent’ have been ‘ “notoriously difficult ... to define and apply,” ’ and ‘have proved to be mischievous.’” (Citations omitted.)); Scott A. Anderegg, Note, The Voluntary Intoxication Defense in Iowa, 73 Iowa L.Rev. 935, 935 (1988) (noting confusion regarding concepts of specific and general intent); see also Model Penal Code § 2.02, at 230 & n. 3 (1985) (stating the Model Penal Code employed four culpability distinctions in lieu of the specific-intent/general-intent dichotomy, “which has been such an abiding source of confusion and ambiguity in the penal law”).

We understand the need for answers to important legal questions faced by the bench and bar. However, fundamental principles of judicial restraint limit our role to deciding each case on the issues presented, and we refrain from deciding *534issues not presented by the facts. Williams, 695 N.W.2d at 30. We explained the need to resolve legal issues based on facts in Williams:

[W]e recognize the law to be an evolving process that often makes the resolution of legal questions a composite of several cases, from which appellate courts can gain a better view of the puzzle before arranging all the pieces. The wisdom of this process has been revealed time and again, and we continue to subscribe to it today;

Id.

Accordingly, we decline to revisit the issue whether assault is a general- or specific-intent crime in this case. Regardless of which label is attached to the offense, the State was still required to prove Kee-ton possessed the mens rea required by the statute, and we turn to decide if it did so. State v. Taylor, 689 N.W.2d 116, 132 (Iowa 2004) (“[R]egardless of whether assault is a specific intent or general intent crime, the State must prove by evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant intended his act to cause pain or injury to the victim or to result in physical contact that would be insulting or offensive to the victim.”); State v. Bedard, 668 N.W.2d 598, 601 (Iowa 2003) (“The intent elements discussed in Heard remain as part of the definition of the offense and continue to be matters that the State must prove by evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.”), cert. denied, 543 U.S. 932, 125 S.Ct. 336, 160 L.Ed.2d 234 (2004). The State had to prove that Keeton did an act he intended either: (1) to cause the clerk pain or injury, (2) to make insulting or offensive physical contact with the clerk, or (3) to make the clerk fear immediate painful, injurious, insulting, or offensive physical contact. Iowa Code § 708.1(1)- ■ (2). We turn to the evidence in the record that bears upon this intent element.

Keeton testified that he did not intend to touch, hurt, insult, or offend the clerk. However, intent required by the statute “may be inferred from the circumstances of the transaction and the actions of the defendant.” 21 Am.Jur.2d Criminal Law § 128, at 214-15 (1998); see also Taylor, 689 N.W.2d at 132 (“[A]n actor will ordinarily be viewed as intending the natural and probable consequences that usually follow from his or her voluntary act.” (citing Bedard, 668 N.W.2d at 601)).

We begin by considering the actions of the parties to the incident. The surveillance video of the incident offered into evidence at trial showed that the clerk blocked one of the double doors as Keeton tried to exit by standing in front of the door. After the clerk attempted to retrieve the money, Keeton moved in the direction of the other door to exit, and the clerk lunged in front of that door to block Keeton from leaving. Keeton then backed up and began to walk toward the clerk with his hand extended, holding the money. He then pulled his hand to his chest at the same time as the clerk moved off to the side of the doors to permit Keeton to exit.

This evidence could, support an inference of intent to place the clerk in fear of immediate physical contact that would be painful, injurious, insulting, or offensive. Similarly, the evidence could support an inference that the actions of Keeton were intended to result in physical contact which would be insulting or offensive to the clerk. Keeton wanted to leave the store, and his outstretched hand could evidence his intent to push the clerk out of his path.

Furthermore, the testimony of Keeton and the testimony of the clerk at trial provided further evidence of the intent to support the conviction under the statute. The clerk testified she felt Keeton was *535“bound and determined to keep the money,” and she realized there was “no way” she could keep him from leaving. While this testimony is not dispositive, these perceptions are properly considered in determining intent. See Spears, 312 N.W.2d at 81 (stating the fact that the victim “may or may not have been afraid of the victim is not dispositive” and that the focus of the assault statute is on the defendant, not the victim); 6 Am.Jur.2d Assault and Battery § 18, at 25 (1999) (“Some courts have held that the requisite intent can be inferred from evidence that the complainant was in fear of imminent serious bodily injury, and that he felt it was the defendant’s intention to so place him”). Moreover, Keeton acknowledged on cross-examination that he “would have pushed past [the clerk] and went out the door” if the clerk failed to move from the exit. Although Keeton tried to retract this testimony on redirect examination, it was nevertheless evidence of intent.

We conclude that the record, viewed in the light most favorable to the State, reveals substantial evidence to satisfy the intent element of the crime of assault under section 708.1(1) and (2). Furthermore, the same evidence supports the conclusion that Keeton committed an overt act in furtherance of that intent. See Iowa Code § 708.1 (requiring an act); Heard, 636 N.W.2d at 230 (“Assault requires an overt act.” (citing State v. Smith, 309 N.W.2d 454, 457 (Iowa 1981))); 6 Am.Jur.2d Assault and Battery § 24, at 29 (“When an assault is defined as an attempt to commit a battery, the overt act, to be sufficient to support a charge of assault, must be a direct, ineffectual act toward the commission of a battery. When an unequivocal purpose of violence is accompanied by any act which, if not stopped or diverted, will result in personal injury, the execution of the purpose to commit a battery has begun and is enough to constitute a criminal assault.”). The final element of assault— that Keeton had the apparent ability to do the act — is not disputed on appeal.

We understand Keeton’s argument that he was only attempting to leave the store to complete his theft, not to commit an assault. Yet, this is not a case where proof of intent depends upon a single piece of evidence from which two reasonable inferences could be drawn. See State v. Truesdell, 679 N.W.2d 611, 618-19 (Iowa 2004) (“[W]hen two reasonable inferences can be drawn from a piece of evidence, we believe such evidence only gives rise to a suspicion, and, without additional evidence, is insufficient to support guilt.” (Citations omitted; emphasis added.)). The multiple actions of the participants in this case and the inferences derived from those actions, as well as their testimony, are together sufficient to support a finding of the intent element of an assault under our statutory definition. The success of Keeton’s claim at trial hinged on the facts as viewed by the fact-finder, and it is not for us to interfere with the finding made when supported by substantial evidence, even though the evidence may have also supported a finding favorable to the defendant. See Chrysler Fin. Co. v. Bergstrom, 703 N.W.2d 415, 418 (Iowa 2005) (“ ‘ “Evidence is not insubstantial merely because we may draw different conclusions from it; the ultimate question is whether it supports the finding actually made, not whether the evidence would support a different finding.” ’ ” (quoting Fischer v. City of Sioux City, 695 N.W.2d 31, 33-34 (Iowa 2005); citing 5 Am.Jur.2d Appellate Review § 666, at 340 (1995))); State v. Axline, 450 N.W.2d 857, 860 (Iowa 1990) (affirming because although the evidence could have supported a different conclusion than that reached by the district court, there was substantial evidence to support the conclusion actually reached).

*536Keeton does not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence on the other elements of robbery. Therefore, we need not consider them.

IV. Conclusion

We conclude there was substantial evidence presented at trial that Keeton committed an assault on the clerk. We affirm his conviction for robbery in the second degree.

AFFIRMED.

*528WATHEN, C.J.

[¶ 1] Defendant John R. Moon appeals from a judgment entered in the Superior Court (Penobscot County, Hjelm, J.) following a jury verdict finding him guilty of theft (Class B), 17-A M.R.S.A. § 353 (1983).1 Defendant contends that the court erred in limiting his expert’s testimony, in instructing the jury concerning the charges of theft by unauthorized taking or transfer and theft by misapplication of property, in instructing the jury concerning the time at which an intention to deprive must exist, and in allowing overly remote evidence of the mental element. Finding no error, we affirm.

[¶ 2] The relevant facts may be summarized as follows: Defendant, while working on his M.B.A. degree at the University of Maine at Orono, was recruited to be a resident advisor of the Sigma Chi Fraternity house. After the local chapter of the Sigma Chi was closed, he was again recruited by alumni of the Rho Rho Chapter of Sigma Chi to resurrect the chapter at the University. He was hired as director of the fundraising campaign, project manager of the renovation project, and live-in resident advisor. He also served, without compensation, as treasurer of the Rho Rho Chapter. During the period defendant was treasurer, he transferred funds from the fraternity’s bank accounts on numerous occasions to either himself personally or to Marsh Island Development Company (MIDCO), a corporation in which he was a significant shareholder. He used the funds primarily to renovate a four-story brick townhouse located at 137 Main Street, Bangor, with the intention of then obtaining conventional residential financing. In the end, he was unable to obtain residential financing. He concealed these transfers from the Board of Trustees of the fraternity and obtained no authorization from the Board. During the period defendant was taking the funds, his personal bank balances were low and he incurred substantial debt, the proceeds of which he used in part to repay the fraternity. Defendant continued to take funds even when he knew that obtaining the residential financing would be difficult. He admits that from 1991 to 1994 he took approximately $120,000.00, returned over $100,000.00, and still owes $19,972.41.

[¶ 3] His defense at trial focused on demonstrating that he had no intent to deprive. He argued that he always intended to repay the money and that he believed he had $110,000.00 in equity in his Main Street property to cover the money he had taken. To support his defense, defendant testified himself as to his intent and also introduced the testimony of Gregory Noonan, a certified fraud examiner, certified public accountant and attorney. Noonan testified before the jury as follows: Defendant kept a separate account entitled “accounts receivable-other” in the journal and properly recorded each transaction in which defendant either took funds from the fraternity or returned funds. It was significant that defendant included no other receivables within the “accounts receiv*529able-other” account, in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, and important that he included none of these transfers in the general accounts receivable account, which would have been improper because he was an employee. As a result, according to Noonan, defendant left a very good audit trail so that it was easy for an auditor to trace the transactions back to the check register and determine that the funds were made payable to John Moon or MIDCO. Noonan’s review of the records confirmed that during the period from 1991 to 1994 the total amount that went to defendant was $123,477.86 and the amount repaid by defendant was approximately $103,505.00, leaving a balance of approximately $19,-000.00.

[¶ 4] Defendant was indicted in 1997 for theft by unauthorized taking or transfer in violation of 17-A M.R.S.A. § 353 (1983) and subsequently indicted for theft by misapplication of property in violation of 17-A M.R.S.A. § 358 (1983).2 In a trial on the consolidated counts, defendant was found guilty of theft in violation of 17-A M.R.S.A. § 353 and now appeals.

I. Exclusion of Expert Testimony

[¶ 5] Despite the fact that Noonan testified at length, defendant now argues that the court erred by refusing to let him introduce the expert testimony of Noonan that would explain to the lay person how the financial records were kept, how the records created an audit trail, and how the audit trail was inconsistent with all methods of obscuring theft in the books of a business. In fact, the court excluded only the last element of Noonan’s testimony. In voir dire, Noonan testified that there are four basic “embezzlement schemes,” i.e., lapping a/k/a kiting, fictitious receivables, diverting payments in old written off receivables, and borrowing against receivables; that in fourteen years of experience he has not seen a situation of account receivable or cash fraud that fell outside of these four categories; and this case is distinguished because “every transaction was documented right to the T.”

[¶ 6] The court refused to allow this portion of Noonan’s testimony on the basis of relevancy under M.R. Evid. 401 and 402 and jury confusion under M.R. Evid. 403. The court determined that the expert’s testimony dealt with embezzlement schemes, that defendant was charged with theft, and that embezzlement and theft are not necessarily co-extensive. It further found that the testimony could confuse the jurors because Noonan’s audit standards for the embezzlement schemes differ from the statutory elements of theft.

[¶ 7] We review evidentiary rulings on relevancy and prejudicial effect for clear error or an abuse of discretion. See State v. Shuman, 622 A.2d 716, 718 (Me.1993). “[W]e accord wide discretion to the court’s determination on the relevancy of the proffered evidence, as well as to its evaluation of any unfair prejudice that may result from the admission of the evidence.” Id. (citations omitted). Evidence is relevant if it has “any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence.” M.R. Evid. 401. Even if the proffered evidence on voir dire might have helped the jury understand that defendant’s conduct was different than the normal conduct of one who takes money in an embezzlement scheme, it was not relevant because it did not make the *530determination of a fact of consequence more or less probable.

[¶ 8] The jury had the expert’s testimony, without the proffered portion, that explained how the financial records were kept and how the records created an audit trail. This evidence, without the proffered evidence, supported defendant’s argument that because of his meticulous recordkeep-ing and because he returned a substantial portion of the funds, he did not intend to deprive the fraternity of the funds permanently, but instead intended to repay the debt. Moreover, whether defendant’s conduct conforms with historical patterns of embezzlement is irrelevant to whether defendant committed theft by unauthorized taking or by misapplication of funds as defined by the statute. The court correctly found that the embezzlement schemes to which the expert would have testified and the crime of theft as defined by the statute are not co-extensive.

[¶ 9] Expert testimony may be relevant when it is offered to show that the defendant’s conduct conformed with a criminal technique. See State v. Gervais, 394 A.2d 1183, 1187-88 (Me.1978) (allowing admission of expert testimony that “directions” technique was a commonly recognized method of operation used by burglars to help the jury appreciate the relationship between seemingly innocent acts); United States v. Brawner, 173 F.3d 966, 970-71 (6th Cir.1999) (allowing admission of expert testimony concerning telemarketing schemes to help the jury decide whether the defendant’s operations were fraudulent). The opposite could be relevant, but in this context the issue is more problematic. Simply because a person is clever enough to devise a new method of committing a theft that does not conform with a known existing embezzlement scheme, or foolhardy enough to document his activity, does not make it less probable that the crime of theft was committed. Although defendant and his expert witness focused on his intent to repay the money to support his contention that he did not intend to deprive the fraternity of the funds permanently, see 17-A M.R.S.A. § 352(3)(A), they ignored the patent possibility that he committed theft in violation of the statute by using the fraternity’s money “under circumstances that make it unlikely that the owner will recover it.” 17-A M.R.S.A. § 352(3)(C). Accordingly, the expert’s testimony concerning embezzlement schemes is not relevant and does not tend to prove that defendant lacked the intent to deprive based on the complete statutory definition of theft.

II. Jury Instructions

[¶ 10] We review jury instructions “to ensure that they correctly informed the jury of the governing law.” State v. Tarmey, 2000 ME 23, ¶ 9, 755 A.2d 482 (citation omitted). A court is not required to give instructions in the same language as requested, provided the court’s instructions are complete and accurate. See State v. Carvelle, 290 A.2d 190, 193 (Me.1972).

[¶ 11] Defendant argues that the court erred in consolidating the two indictments for theft, theft by unauthorized taking, 17-A M.R.S.A. § 353, and theft by misapplication, 17-A M.R.S.A. § 358, before the verdict because it confused the jury. He argues that he submitted two proposed instructions that treated the two indictments separately, but that the court did not use his instructions and instead improperly combined the indictments. He argues that because the two crimes of theft require proof of different elements, by mixing the two in its jury instructions, the court invited the jurors to mix the elements so that the verdict does not necessarily méan that they found all the elements of one offense in order to reach their verdict.

[¶ 12] Reviewed as a whole, the jury instructions were both complete and accurate and not confusing to the jury. At the beginning of the trial, the court instructed the jury as follows: “I do want to *531alert you at this point that those charges will be consolidated for your purposes of deliberation; in other words, when you deliberate and reach a verdict, you will be reaching one verdict, whether it’s guilty or not guilty, rather than two separate verdicts on two separate charges.” In its jury instructions at the end of the trial, the court separately described the elements of theft by unauthorized taking and the elements of theft by misapplication and defined the meaning of the various terms therein. The court explained that the jury could find defendant guilty if the jury found that the State had proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the crime of theft, either theft by unauthorized taking or transfer or theft by misapplication of property. Therefore, the jury instructions relating to the two alternatives for finding theft were not erroneous.

[¶ 18] Defendant also argues that the court erred because it refused to provide his proposed jury instructions which emphasized that the necessary mental element of intent to deprive must exist “at the time of the taking.” Defendant’s proposed instruction stated in relevant part:

This intent to deprive the true owner of the property must have existed at the time that the unauthorized control first took place.... [I]f you find that the Defendant exercised unauthorized control over the fraternity’s money, you must then examine the evidence whether, at the time Defendant began exercising unauthorized control, he then and there had the intent to deprive the fraternity of that money.

The court instructed the jury as follows:

A person commits the crime of theft ... if that person obtains or exercises unauthorized control over the property of another with the intent, at the time he obtains or exercises unauthorized control over the property, to deprive the owner thereof.

The difference between the instructions is that defendant sought to limit the criminal act to a single point in time, namely, “the time Defendant began exercising unauthorized control,” for the purpose of determining the presence of the required mental element. The distinction, however, if any, is not relevant in this case. Even if defendant intended to repay the funds at the precise moment he took them, he nonetheless consciously used the money in a way which the jury could find made it unlikely that the fraternity would recover it, in violation of section 352(3)(C).

III. Remote Evidence

[¶ 14] Defendant also argues that the court erred in allowing evidence that he filed bankruptcy years after he took the funds and that he had not repaid the fraternity up until the time of the trial. He argues that the evidence was too remote and thus prejudicial because the intent to deprive must be at the time of initially obtaining possession or control. This argument also focuses on his intent to repay the money at the time of the taking and thus lacks merit because it does not negate the particular variant of intent to deprive involved in this case. In any event, the jury could have inferred that defendant had not repaid the fraternity based on his testimony on direct examination that he owes the fraternity $19,972.41.

The entry is:

Judgment affirmed.

DORMAN, Chief Judge:

A military judge sitting as a special court-martial convicted the appellant, pursuant to his pleas, of a false official statement and larceny. The appellant’s crimes violated Articles 107 and 121, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. §§ 907 and 921. The adjudged and approved sentence consists of a bad-conduct discharge, confinement for 45 days, and reduction to pay grade E-l. In taking action the convening authority waived automatic forfeiture of pay for 6 months from the date of the action.1

This case was initially submitted without assignment of error. In our initial review of the record, we specified an issue to counsel concerning whether the appellant’s guilty plea to larceny was provident. We have carefully considered the record of trial, and the briefs submitted by counsel in response to the specified issue. We conclude that the appellant’s plea to larceny was not provident. Following our corrective action we conclude that there are no remaining errors that are materially prejudicial to the appellant’s substantial rights. Arts 59(a) and 66(c), UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. §§ 859(a) and 866(c).

*678Providence Inquiry

The appellant pleaded guilty to the theft of several items of special operations equipment, such as a force vest, canteen covers, and a duty belt (hereinafter referred to as “gear”). The total value of the stolen gear exceeded $500.00. The gear belonged to another Marine. There is no stipulation of fact concerning what the appellant did to assist in evaluating whether a factual basis for the guilty plea exists. A summary of the providence inquiry follows:

The appellant was serving in Al Hillah, Iraq, when he took the gear he was charged with stealing. The gear was located in an open box, and, at the time he took it, the appellant did not know who owned the gear. The appellant found the box in a room that he and others had been told to clean out in preparation for another platoon’s arrival. Unit personnel had previously used this room to store their packs. The room contained several boxes that they had been instructed to dispose of, including the box containing the gear. As they cleaned out the room, they discovered items that were never picked up by their owners and appeared to have been left behind for trash. The appellant took the box from a room where unit personnel had been storing their packs and he brought it to his rack. There was no name on the gear, but the appellant knew it did not belong to him. The appellant was the first one to find the box containing the gear. The appellant also knew that the items should not have been discarded. He went up and down the passageway asking whether anyone had left a box of gear in the room. He asked almost the entire platoon. When he could not determine who owned the gear, he decided to use it himself.

The appellant used the gear for about a month while going on patrols. The use continued until his section leader confronted him about whether the gear belonged to him. Initially, the appellant told the section leader that he had purchased the gear. This false statement was prosecuted under Article 107, UCMJ. The appellant did not learn who owned the gear until after he had surrendered it. The owner was a member of the appellant’s battalion, and the appellant was acquainted with him. The appellant informed the military judge that if he had not been confronted by the command, he would have continued to use the gear.

As the providence inquiry continued, the appellant then answered “yes” or “no” to a series of questions dealing with the legality of his actions. He admitted that he knew it was wrongful to take the gear, that the gear was not abandoned, that he intended to permanently deprive the owner of the gear, that he had no legal justification or excuse for his actions, and that he took and retained the gear with a criminal state of mind. Record at 13-22.

Due to the substance of the providence inquiry we specified the following issue:

Whether the appellant’s guilty plea to larceny was provident where, during the providence inquiry, the appellant told the military judge that: 1) he found the items he allegedly stole in a room he had been ordered to clean out; 2) there were items in the room “that people just never went and got. They just left it there for trash” (Record at 19); 3) he had been ordered to get rid of the gear in the room and the allegedly stolen items were in one of the boxes in the room; and, 4) he had attempted to determine the owner of the gear?

N.M.Ct.CrimApp. Order of 2 Mar 2005. The appellant now argues that his plea is improvident because the military judge failed to adequately inquire into the “apparent defense of ignorance or mistake of fact as to whether the gear ... was abandoned, lost, or mislaid.” Appellant’s Brief of 31 May 2005 at 6 (footnote omitted). The Government counters, following a recapitulation of the content of the providence inquiry, that the pleas are provident, with no discussion of the law concerning abandoned, lost or mislaid property. See Government’s Answer of 24 Aug 2005.

The law is well-settled as to the requirements for the acceptance of a guilty plea. A military judge may not accept a guilty plea to an offense without inquiring into its factual basis. Art. 45(a), UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 845(a); United States v. McCrimmon, 60 M.J. 145, 152 (C.A.A.F.2004); Unit *679 ed States v. Care, 40 C.M.R. 247, 1969 WL 6059 (C.M.A.1969). Before accepting a guilty plea, the military judge must explain the elements of the offense and ensure that a factual basis for the plea exists. United States v. Faircloth, 45 M.J. 172, 174 (C.A.A.F.1996); United States v. Davenport, 9 M.J. 364, 367 (C.M.A.1980). Mere conclusions of law recited by the accused are insufficient to provide a factual basis for a guilty plea. United States v. Jordan, 57 M.J. 236, 239 (C.A.A.F.2002); United States v. Outhier, 45 M.J. 326, 331 (C.A.A.F.1996)(citing United States v. Terry, 45 C.M.R. 216, 1972 WL 14158 (C.M.A.1972)). The accused “must be convinced of, and able to describe all the facts necessary to establish guilt.” Rule for Courts-Martial 910(e), Manual for Courts-Martial, United States (2002 ed.), Discussion. Acceptance of a guilty plea requires the accused to substantiate the facts that objectively support his plea. United States v. Schwabauer, 37 M.J. 338, 341 (C.M.A.1993)(citing Davenport, 9 M.J. at 367); R.C.M. 910(e).

A military judge may not “arbitrarily reject a guilty plea.” United States v. Penister, 25 M.J. 148, 152 (C.M.A.1987)(citing United States v. Johnson, 12 M.J. 670, 673 (A.C.M.R.1981)). The standard of review to determine whether a plea is provident is whether the record reveals a substantial basis in law and fact for questioning the plea. United States v. Prater, 32 M.J. 433, 436 (C.M.A.1991). Such rejection must overcome the generally applied waiver of the factual issue of guilt inherent in voluntary pleas of guilty, and the only exception to the general rule of waiver arises when an error materially prejudicial to the substantial rights of the appellant occurs. Art. 59(a), UCMJ; R.C.M. 910(j). Additionally, we note that a military judge has wide discretion in determining that there is a factual basis for the plea. See United States v. Roane, 43 M.J. 93, 94-95 (C.A.A.F.1995). An abuse of discretion standard is applied in reviewing the question of whether a military judge erred in accepting a guilty plea. United States v. Eberle, 44 M.J. 374, 375 (C.A.A.F. 1996). In considering the adequacy of guilty pleas, we consider the entire record to determine whether the requirements of Article 45, UCMJ, R.C.M. 910, and Care and its progeny have been met. Jordan, hi M.J. at 239.

In our review of the record, we determined that the military judge accurately listed the elements of larceny and defined the terms relevant to those elements. Record at 11-13. We also determined that the appellant indicated an understanding of the elements of the offense and that he acknowledged that they correctly described what he did. Id. at 13. Thereafter, the military judge conducted an inquiry with the appellant to determine whether a factual basis for the plea existed. The inquiry went well until such time as the appellant essentially informed the military judge that the gear he took had been left in the room as trash. Id. at 19. After that point, most of the questions asked by the military judge called for a “yes” or “no” answer, and many called for legal conclusions. Id. at 19-22.

Abandoned property cannot be the subject of a larceny. United States v. Malone, 14 M.J. 563, 564 (N.M.C.M.R.1982);2 United States v. Allison, 30 M.J. 546, 547 (A.C.M.R.1990)(citing United States v. Santulli, 28 M.J. 651, 652 n. 2 (A.C.M.R.1989); United States v. Swords, 35 C.M.R. 889, 894, 1965 WL 4760 (A.F.B.R.1965)). The appellant’s statement to the military judge that the gear had been left there as trash raised the issue of mistake of fact. Furthermore, since larceny is a specific intent offense, if the appellant had an honest belief that the property was abandoned, he has a complete defense. R.C.M. 916(j); Malone, 14 M.J. at 565.

For a complex offense such as conspiracy, robbery, or murder, a failure to discuss and explain the elements of the offense during the providence inquiry has been held to be fatal to the guilty plea on appeal. United States v. Pretlow, 13 M.J. 85, 88-89 (C.M.A.1982); United States v. Nystrom, 39 M.J. 698, 701-02 (N.M.C.M.R.1993). Similarly, a *680military judge should explain the elements of defenses, such as mistake of fact and abandonment, if raised by the appellant during the providence inquiry.3 If during the plea inquiry an accused “reasonably raises the question of a defense,” United States v. Timmins, 45 C.M.R. 249, 253, 1972 WL 14168 (C.M.A.1972)(concerning the mistake of fact defense), or “ ‘sets up matter inconsistent ■with the plea’... the military judge must either resolve the apparent inconsistency or reject the plea.” United States v. Garcia, 44 M.J. 496, 498 (C.A.A.F.1996)(quoting Art. 45(a), UCMJ). Failure to do so can leave unresolved substantial inconsistencies in the pleas and/or raise questions concerning whether the appellant was armed with sufficient information to knowingly plead guilty. See, e.g., United States v. Harris, 61 M.J. 391, 398 (C.A.A.F.2005). Where the elements of an offense, or defenses, are commonly known by most servieemembers, however, it is not necessary for the military judge to explain them, if it is otherwise apparent on the record that the accused understood the elements or the defense. See Nystrom, 39 M.J. at 701.

In the ease before us, the military judge failed to explain the mistake of fact defense to the appellant. Although the military judge did ask the appellant if he believed the gear was abandoned, he did not provide the appellant with the legal definition of abandoned property. A reading of the case law with respect to this issue makes clear that the legal significance of the term “abandoned” is not one that would be “commonly known and understood by servieemembers.” Id.

Applying the standards of review noted above, we conclude that the record reveals a substantial basis in law and fact to question the appellant’s guilty plea to larceny. Thus, we conclude that the military judge erred by failing to inform the appellant of the defense of mistake of fact and the definitions and legal significance of abandoned property. He did not adequately resolve the issue of mistake of fact. When the appellant informed the military judge that the gear had been left behind as trash, the military judge inappropriately asked the appellant “yes” or “no” type questions that called for legal conclusions. Jordan, 57 M.J. at 239. By not explaining the relevant legal terms, the military judge denied the appellant the ability to make an informed decision concerning the answers he provided. In light of these errors, we conclude that the appellant’s guilty pleas to Charge II and its specification are not provident.

We take this opportunity to note that the error in this case does not fall solely on the shoulders of the military judge. At the conclusion of his inquiry into the providence of the guilty plea to the specification under Charge II, he asked counsel if either desired further questioning. Both counsel said they did not. Record at 22-23. Such a reply is all too common in eases where the issue before us is the providence of the plea. Trial counsel, in particular, should be ever vigilant during the plea providence inquiry and assist the military judge by suggesting areas of further inquiry concerning the elements of the offense or potential defenses.

Conclusion

Accordingly, the findings to Charge II and its specification are set aside. The remaining findings are affirmed. In light of our action on the findings, the case is returned to the Judge Advocate General for referral to an appropriate convening authority. That convening authority may order a rehearing with respect to Charge II and its specification and the sentence. If a rehearing is impracticable, the convening authority may reassess the sentence in accordance with the principles of United States v. Reed, 33 M.J. 98 (C.M.A.1991), except that upon reassessment, a bad-conduct discharge may not be approved.

Senior Judge CARVER and Judge VOLLENWEIDER concur.

ROGERS, Chief Judge:

Following a bench trial before Hearing Commissioner John W. King, appellant was found guilty of tampering with a vehicle in violation of 18 DCMR § 1105.2(a) (1986), and sentenced under 18 DCMR § 1110.1 to a $160.00 fine and ten days imprisonment; the sentence was suspended and appellant was placed on six months probation.1 The trial judge affirmed the commissioner’s decision.2 Appellant now contends that the hearing commissioner erroneously refused *217to consider appellant’s defenses of abandonment and mistake of fact.3 We affirm,

I

At approximately 7:30 p.m. on May 3, 1990, Captain Joseph Amady of the Metropolitan Police Department observed a group of people attempting to raise a parked Volkswagen Jetta automobile onto the crane of a tow truck. Appellant was standing near a jack and he was placing boards underneath the car. Captain Ama-dy also testified that the police department previously had recovered numerous stolen cars in the same location and that the Jetta being towed did not appear to have been there long. After a computerized check identified the Jetta as a stolen vehicle,4 Captain Amady charged appellant with tampering with a vehicle.

Linda Hancock, who was present at the time of appellant’s arrest, testified that after she had told appellant that she needed a grill and fender for her own Jetta, he escorted her to the stolen Jetta. According to her, before the police arrived appellant examined the stolen Jetta’s fender and said, “It might work.” He then placed a tire on the Jetta so the tow truck could move it. Ms. Hancock described the car as “an abandoned Jetta in the bushes.”

Shawn Clayton, a defense witness, testified that the Jetta looked abandoned to him, since he had seen it a couple of times over the period of a month. He also testified that he overheard appellant talking to someone named Darryl about a request for Jetta parts; appellant told Darryl that he had seen the Jetta in Brandywine Alley, that the “windows are busted out of it_ [and] [i]t looked like it’s brand new,” and that he did not know if it was stolen or not.

Appellant also testified about his conversation with Darryl, and that when Linda Hancock asked if he could acquire parts for her Jetta, he told her that he had noticed “a Jetta abandoned” in the same place for “approximately three weeks to a month, [and that] the windows are all busted out and the car is totally destroyed.” He had told her that “I don’t know if it’s been stolen or abandoned, as far as I know it’s abandoned. No wheels on it an[d] all that. It’s in bad condition.” She responded that she would get a tow truck driver, and less than two hours later she returned with a tow truck, and her two brothers had tried to get the Jetta hooked up to the tow truck to pull the Jetta out of the bushes. On cross-examination, when asked if he had said he did not know if the Jetta was stolen or abandoned, appellant explained that he knew the Jetta did not belong to him and that he had seen the Jetta five or six times over the three-weeks-to-a-month period.5

The government, in rebuttal, called Officer Simmons who testified that he believed that the Jetta might have had a current (1991) Maryland tag on its rear, and that it “was basically pretty much stripped” at the time of appellant’s arrest.

In finding appellant guilty, the hearing commissioner rejected appellant’s claim of lack of jurisdiction, see note 3, supra, and also his defense that he believed the Jetta had been abandoned by its owner. The *218hearing commissioner ruled that, in general, abandonment had to be proved by unequivocal, clear and decisive evidence but that since appellant was not a member of any statutory class permitted under 18 DCMR § 1105.2 to touch a vehicle (i.e., the vehicle’s owner, the vehicle owner’s representative or a government official), abandonment in the nature of a mistake of fact was not a defense. Alternatively, the commissioner ruled that “under either the Government’s theory or even the Defense theory, [appellant,] based on the evidence and the facts that I have found beyond a reasonable doubt[,] must be found guilty.” Appellant raised the jurisdictional and abandonment claims in a Super.Ct.Crim.R, 117(g) motion before the trial judge, who affirmed the decision of the hearing commissioner without opinion upon entering the judgment and commitment order.

II

Appellant contends that the hearing commissioner erroneously rejected his defense of mistake of fact based on the evidence that appellant thought the stolen Jetta had been abandoned by its owner. He maintains that although the hearing commissioner recognized that tampering under 18 DCMR § 1105.2 was a general intent crime, the commissioner concluded that the offense was one of strict liability.

The prohibition against tampering does not ban all forms of contact with a vehicle by individuals not within one of the statutorily exempted groups. See In re R.F.H., 354 A.2d 844 (D.C.1976). This court has construed the word “tampering” as limiting the regulation’s applicability to those who physically contact another’s vehicle with “an improper purpose or intent.” Id. at 847 (concluding that the regulatory' prohibition against tampering with a vehicle was not unconstitutionally vague) (footnote omitted). The court distinguished lawful and unlawful contact as follows:

[The definition of tampering] exclude[s] from its coverage the Good Samaritan who is caught turning off the lights of another, because he does not possess an unlawful purpose in acting. It would, however, include those individuals apprehended for prying open or picking a vehicle’s lock.... It would also include those individuals caught while attempting to pick the lock of an automobile.

Id. at 847 (quoting District of Columbia v. Gary, No. 16739-67 (D.C.Super.Ct. October 10, 1968)).

Appellant’s defense that he believed the Jetta was abandoned is essentially a defense of mistake of fact.6 Williams v. United States, 337 A.2d 772, 774 (D.C.1975). In general intent crimes, such as tampering with another’s vehicle, see R.F.H., supra, 354 A.2d at 847 n. 7, a defendant may interpose a mistake of fact defense if the defendant proves “to the satisfaction of the fact finder that the mistake was both (1) honest and (2) reasonable.” Williams, supra, 337 A.2d at 774-75; see also Morgan v. District of Columbia, 476 A.2d 1128, 1132 (D.C.1984) (proof of general intent requires absence of exculpatory state of mind such as mistake of fact). Thus, appellant’s mistake of fact defense is a proper defense to tampering with an automobile because it can negate appellant’s general intent to commit the crime, thereby demonstrating that appellant did not physically make contact with the stolen Jetta with an “unlawful purpose.” R.F.H., supra, 354 A.2d at 847 (citation omitted); see also Williams, supra, 337 A.2d at 774-75.

However, where the mistake of fact is based on a claim that the defendant mistakenly believed property had been abandoned by its owner, the court has also stated that:

An abandonment must be made to appear affirmatively by the party relying on it, and an intention to abandon will *219not ordinarily be presumed, and this is particularly true if the conduct of the owner can be explained consistently with a continued claim. Proof of abandonment must be made by the one asserting it by clear, unequivocal and decisive evidence.

Peyton v. United States, 275 A.2d 229, 230 (D.C.1971) (quoting Friedman v. United States, 347 F.2d 697, 704 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 382 U.S. 946, 86 S.Ct. 407, 15 L.Ed.2d 354 (1965)); Williams, supra, 337 A.2d at 774. The precise relationship between the requirement that an abandonment must be shown by clear, unequivocal and decisive evidence, and the requirement that a defendant demonstrate that his belief that property was abandoned was honest and reasonable, is not immediately clear. Peyton’s quotation of Friedman’s language might suggest that the focus should be on whether the lawful owner intended to abandon the property, and that a mistake of fact defense resting on a belief that the property was abandoned is somehow different from other mistake of fact defenses, requiring the defendant to satisfy a more burdensome standard of proof by clear, unequivocal and decisive evidence. But that is not, and indeed, could not be, the case. See Mullaney v. Wilbur, 421 U.S. 684, 702, 95 S.Ct. 1881, 1891, 44 L.Ed.2d 508 (1975) (fact that intent is “peculiarly within the knowledge of the defendant” does not justify shifting burden to defendant); In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 364, 90 S.Ct. 1068, 1072, 25 L.Ed.2d 368 (1970) (Due Process Clause places burden on government to prove every element of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt).7 In Friedman, supra, on which this court relied in Peyton, the issue was merely whether the trial court had correctly found that the defendant had abandoned certain property and so could not claim Fourth Amendment protection against its seizure, 347 F.2d at 704-06; no issue was presented regarding the government’s obligation to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Further, we think that when the court in Peyton, supra, 275 A.2d at 230, referred to the clear and unequivocal evidence standard it was simply explaining why the defendant in that case had not presented evidence of abandonment — ie., that property on the sidewalk outside of a drug store was abandoned — sufficient to create a reasonable doubt in the jury’s mind. See id. (“the jurors were properly instructed on intent and chose to believe that defendant intended to steal the carton of matches”). The court did not purport to foreclose a jury instruction on mistake of fact based upon abandonment. Id. Indeed, in Goddard v. United States, 557 A.2d 1315, 1317 (D.C.1989), the court expressly stated that a defendant raising a mistake of fact defense based on an actual and reasonable belief of abandonment “is entitled to a jury instruction on any issue fairly raised by the evidence, however weak, ... so long as a reasonable juror acting reasonably could credit the evidence.” (citations and internal quotations omitted).8

A mistake of fact defense based on a defendant’s belief that property was abandoned by its owner necessarily turns on the defendant’s reasonable belief and not on the lawful owner's actual intention to abandon his or her property.9 See W. LaFave & A. Scott, Substantive Criminal Law ch. 5 § 5.1(b), at 581 (“the general principle [is] that ignorance or mistake of fact or law is a defense only if it negates a required mental state [of defendant]”). Therefore, as with any other mistake of fact defense to a general intent crime, the defense of abandonment rests on whether the defendant’s belief was honest and reasonable, see Williams, supra, 337 A.2d at *220774-75, and is not a special kind of mistake of fact defense placing a heavier burden on the defendant.

The question remains whether the hearing commissioner’s ruling that appellant could not interpose a mistake of fact defense was harmless error.10 See Carter v. United States, 531 A.2d 956, 959 (D.C.1987); Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 24, 87 S.Ct. 824, 828, 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967). The commissioner did not state that appellant’s only burden was to show that his mistake was both honest and reasonable. Rather, the commissioner focused initially on the fact that appellant would not have been entitled to a jury instruction because he did not fall within one of the three statutory classes of people entitled to touch a vehicle. Therefore, the commissioner concluded that no such defense was available to appellant. However, thereafter the commissioner made an alternative ruling, that even under the defense theory the evidence established beyond a reasonable doubt that appellant was guilty. The only theory presented by the defense, other than a jurisdictional claim that the commissioner had earlier rejected, see note 3, supra, was that appellant had thought that the Jetta was abandoned.

The factual findings underlying the commissioner’s ruling are supported by the evidence and are not clearly erroneous. D.C.Code § 17-305 (Repl.1989). The findings relevant to the mistake of fact defense were that, according to appellant and Mr. Clayton, the Jetta had been in the alley for about a month and did not have any windows or wheels and looked like it needed parts. Further, appellant had stated that he did not know whether the car was abandoned or stolen. The transcript makes clear that appellant did not testify that he believed the car was abandoned by its owner. Rather, just prior to the tampering incident, he admitted to others that he did not know whether the car had been abandoned or stolen. The commissioner could reasonably infer that appellant’s admission reflected that he knew there was an alternative explanation for the vehicle’s condition that was consistent with a continuous claim of ownership by the Jetta’s owner. The fact that the Jetta had been stripped of its tires and radio and had its windshield broken, muchless its location in the bushes, did not require the commissioner to credit appellant’s defense.11 Abandonment cannot be presumed merely because of the location and condition of the car since those circumstances “[could] be explained consistently with a continued claim” by the owner. Peyton, supra, 275 A.2d at 230. The Jetta was only about two years old, and had a current registration tag on the rear. Appellant never disputed that the car had a current license plate on it. The Jetta also was in an area where numerous stolen vehicles had previously been recovered by the police, although, admittedly, there was no showing that appellant had reason to be aware of this fact. However, there also was no testimony of any structural damage to the body of the car that would suggest that the Jetta’s damage resulted from an automobile accident. Thus, there was sufficient evidence for the commissioner to find that appellant realized that the car might not be abandoned.

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment.

MINER, Circuit Judge.

Defendants-appellants, Chen Xiang (“Chen”) and Lin Xian Wu (“Lin”) (collectively, “Appellants”), appeal from judgments of conviction entered in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Casey, /.), following a jury trial, convicting each of the Appellants, under a superseding indictment, of one count of conspiracy to commit extortion, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951 (“Count One”); one count of extortion, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2 and 1951 (“Count Two”); three counts of conspiracy to commit robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951 (“Counts Four, Seven, and Ten”); three counts of robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2 and 1951 (“Counts Five, Eight, and Eleven”); and four counts of using, carrying, and possessing a firearm during and in relation to participation in the charged extortion, robberies, and conspiracies to commit extortion and robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(ii) (“Counts Three, Six, Nine, and Twelve”).

Appellants contend that the evidence adduced at trial to prove their guilt in connection with the charged counts of extortion and of conspiracy to commit extortion *365was insufficient as a matter of law. We agree and, accordingly, reverse the convictions of Appellants under Counts One and Two. Appellants also contend that as a consequence of the legal insufficiency of the extortion-related evidence, the convictions of Appellants for using, carrying, and possessing a firearm during and in relation to the charged extortion and conspiracy to commit extortion also must be reversed. We agree with Appellants in this regard, too, and accordingly reverse the convictions of Appellants under Count Three.1 Finally, in view of these reversals, we remand for resentencing. We , affirm the judgments of the District Court in all other respects.

BACKGROUND

On August 12, 2002, Appellants were charged in a superseding indictment (the “Indictment”) as follows: Count One charged Appellants with' conspiring to commit extortion, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951. Count Two charged Appellants with extortion, in violation of §§ 2 and 1951. Count Three charged Appellants with using a firearm during and in relation to the crimes charged in'Counts One and Two, in violation of § 924(c)(1)(A)(ii). Counts Four, Seven, and Ten charged Appellants with conspiring to commit robbery, in violation of § 1951. Counts Five, Eight, and Eleven charged Appellants with robbery, in violation of §§ 2 and 1951. And finally, Counts Six, Nine, and Twelve charged Appellants with using a firearm during and in relation to the crimes charged in Counts Four, Five, Seven, Eight, Ten, and Eleven, in violation of § 924(c)(l)(A)(ii).

A. Underlying Criminal Conduct

The charges in the Indictment have their genesis in a series of robberies and related incidents that occurred in Manhattan’s “Chinatown” during a six-month period between the summer of 2001 and the early months of 2002.2 The first such incident occurred in or around July 2001 at 75’ Eldridge Street — an illegal gambling parlor located behind a clothing store.3 *366On or about July 23, 2001, at approximately 6:00 p.m., an unknown caller telephoned Chen Tin Hua (“Hua”), a “shareholder” in the gambling operation, and identified himself as being associated with “Vietnamese Boy” — presumably, co-defendant/cooperating witness Xiao Qin Zhou (“Xiao”). The caller stated that Vietnamese Boy would come to the gambling parlor later that day to pick up $10,000, which the caller instructed Hua to place in a red envelope. Hua told the caller that he had no money and hung up.

Later that evening, while in the parlor, Hua was summoned outside by a group of men demanding to speak with him. Awaiting Hua were Appellants — Chen and Lin — along with Xiao and co-defendant Li Wei. All four pointed guns at Hua, and Xiao demanded that he give them $10,000. Hua told the group that he had no money. Xiao struck Hua on the head, and Li Wei, using his gun, struck Hua in the stomach. Xiao then ripped a necklace from around Hua’s neck, and the group fled the scene in a vehicle.

Following this foray, the gang began to terrorize the neighborhood systematically. On or about September 30, 2001, Appellants, together with Xiao and co-defendant Li Xin Ye, robbed an illegal gambling parlor located at the back of a barbershop at 21 Eldridge Street, again using guns, and this time making off with more than $10,000.

On or about November 21, 2001, Chen, Lin, Xiao, and co-defendants Chun Rong Chen and Hing Wah Gau attempted to rob the illegal gambling parlor at 75 Eldridge Street but failed because they could not gain entry. Later that same day, the same gang succeeded in robbing another such parlor — this one located inside a florist shop at 109 East Broadway. The five had split up earlier in the day, and only Chen, Xiao, and Chun Rong Chen actually entered the 109 East Broadway gambling parlor during the robbery. Afterwards, however, the five gangsters reconvened and split the $3000 “take” from the robbery.

Finally, on January 23, 2002, Appellants, Xiao, and co-defendant Lin Li robbed an illegal gambling parlor located at the back of a barbershop at 85 Allen Street. Chen and Lin Li entered the gambling parlor first, followed by Lin and Xiao. Appellants and Lin Li, brandishing guns, announced a robbery and the four then proceeded to make off with approximately $10,000. During the robbery, Lin Li pistol-whipped one of the victims in the head.

B. Pre-Trial Proceedings

Prior to trial, the Government moved to admit the testimony of Xiao, Chun Rong Chen, and Li Xin Ye that, between 2000 and 2002, they participated with Appellants in fourteen robberies that were not charged in the Indictment. The Government offered the testimony to demonstrate the criminal relationships among the Appellants and the cooperating witnesses. The Government also sought to introduce *367this evidence, pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence Rule 404(b), to prove Appellants’ knowledge, intent, preparation, and plan. Appellants did not object to any of the purposes for which the Government offered the evidence of the prior acts, but sought to exclude the evidence on the grounds that the probative value of the evidence was substantially outweighed by its potential for prejudice. Appellants argued (i) that the evidence would “convince the jury of [Appellants’] propensity to commit crimes and lead [the jury] to ‘punish the bad m[e]n’ rather than deliberate upon the facts of the charged crime” and (ii) that “the danger of the jury inferring ‘propensity’ to commit the same kind of criminal acts as those charged [was] just to[o] great to justify admission for the purposes set forth by the [Government.”

Thereafter, the Government, “in an effort to streamline the trial,” amended its motion so as to request admission of evidence relating to only six of the fourteen prior acts.4 The Government also sought to introduce the plea allocution of co-defendant Li Wei — as a statement against penal interest, pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 804(b)(3) — to prove the existence of the extortion conspiracy charged in Count One of the Indictment. Chen objected to the admission of the plea allocution on Rule 403 grounds. At a conference held on May 15, 2003, the District Court heard argument oh the Government’s motion to admit the six prior uncharged crimes and the plea allocution of Li Wei, and on the motions of Appellants to preclude certain evidence.

On May 16, 2003, in a six-page unpublished Memorandum Decision and Order, the District Court denied the preclusion motions of Appellants and granted the Government’s motion to admit (i) the plea allocution of Li Wei and (ii) evidence of the prior uncharged crimes. Regarding the plea allocution, the District Court noted that Li Wei had already been sentenced and that, if. asked to testify, he would assert his Fifth Amendment privilege. Thus, the court found, Li Wei was unavailable within the meaning of Federal Rule of Evidence 804. Moreover, the court found, a plea allocution qualified as a declaration against penal interest under Rule 804.

Regarding the uncharged-crimes evidence, the court found that the prior uncharged crimes were no more inflammatory than the crimes charged in the Indictment and, moreover, would not have a cumulative effect because the Government sought “to introduce evidence of uncharged crimes that occurred a short period before the charged crimes and [that] were therefore part of the same transaction or series of events.” The court found that the crimes were “remarkably similar” to the charged crimes but that, “[flnasmuch as there [was] any prejudice to defendants, it [was] outweighed by the probativeness [sic] of the uncharged crimes evidence.” The court further found that the Government intended to use the facts of the uncharged crimes “as background evidence of the circumstances surrounding the events or to furnish an explanation of the understanding or intent with which certain' acts [had been] performed,” both of which were deemed permissible. Finally, the court found *368that any “danger of prejudice [could] be minimized by the use of a limiting 'instruction to the jury.”

C. Lin’s Mental Competence

On October 25, 2002, Lin moved the District Court, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4244(a), for a hearing to determine his mental condition, on the ground that there was “reasonable cause to believe that [he was] suffering from a me[n]tal disease or defect for the treatment of which he [was] in need of custody for care or treatment in a suitable facility.” Lin also requested, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4244(b), that he be given “a psychiatric or psychological examination” prior to the hearing. Between February 13 and March 28, 2003, in accordance with an order of the District Court, a “forensic mental health evaluation” of Lin was conducted by Dr. Thomas Pate-naude, a forensic psychologist affiliated with the Devens Federal Medical Center— a facility operated by the U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) — in Ayer, Massachusetts. The goal of the evaluation was to determine whether Lin was “suffering from a mental disease or defect for the treatment of which he [was] in need of custody for care or treatment in a suitable facility.” Dr. Patenaude reported “with reasonable psychological certainty” that Lin was not suffering from such a mental disease or defect. The District Court made no further orders before trial with respect to Lin’s mental condition.

On or about December 18, 2003, subsequent to Lin’s trial, conviction, and appeal, the District Court received a letter from the BOP stating that an internal investigation had revealed “sufficient evidence to question the credibility and accuracy of [Dr. Patenaude’s] psychological evaluation” of Lin. On February 13, 2004, Lin moved this Court to stay his appeal and remand the case to allow him to seek an order from the District Court “for a new psychological evaluation.” On April 1, 2004, this Court granted that motion. On July 19, 2004, the District Court granted a second examination but, over Lin’s objection, ordered that Lin be evaluated by “an examiner to be designated by the [BOP],” rather than “by [Lin’s] chosen examiner.” Between July 30 and August 26, 2004, Dr. Randall Rattan, a forensic psychologist affiliated with the BOP, conducted a psychological evaluation of Lin at the Federal Medical Center in Fort Worth, Texas. After examining Lin and the records associated with his case, Dr. Rattan’s opinion was that Lin “appeared competent for both trial and sentencing.”

D. Trial and Sentence

The evidence’ at trial established that Appellants had, as part of a gang, engaged in a series of crimes during the approximately six-month period from July 2001 to January 2002. The Government’s evidence at trial consisted of testimony from cooperating witnesses Xiao, Li Xin Ye, and Chun Rong Chen — who, as noted above, were co-defendants and part of the gang that committed the crimes charged. The Government’s witnesses also included victims of the crimes, as well as law enforcement officers who were involved in the investigation of the gang’s activities. The Government also introduced physical evidence, including guns and ammunition, recovered from an apartment that Appellants had shared with a co-conspirator.

On May 29, 2003, after a two-week trial, a jury found both Chen and Lin guilty of each of the charged offenses. On September 18, 2003, the District Court sentenced Chen to a term of imprisonment of seventy months on Counts One, Two, Four, Five, Seven, Eight, Ten, and Eleven, to be followed by an aggregate consecutive term of *369imprisonment of 984 months on Counts Three, Six, Nine, and Twelve.5 The District Court ordered that Chen’s term of imprisonment be followed by concurrent terms of supervised release of three years on each count, and imposed a mandatory special assessment of $1200.

On September 25, 2003, the District Court sentenced Lin to a term of imprisonment of fifty-seven months on Counts One, Two, Four, Five, Seven, Eight, Ten, and Eleven, to be followed by an aggregate consecutive term of imprisonment of 984 months on Counts Three, Six, Nine, and Twelve. The District Court ordered that Lin’s term of imprisonment be followed by concurrent terms of supervised release of three years on each count, and imposed a mandatory special assessment of $1200. Judgments were entered in due course, and these timely appeals followed.

On appeal, Appellants challenge as unduly prejudicial the admission at trial of evidence of the six prior uncharged crimes; Appellants also challenge, on Confrontation Clause grounds, the admission of evidence relating to Li Wei’s plea allo-cution. In addition, Appellants assert that the evidence of their guilt with respect to the extortion-related counts was legally insufficient, regardless of the admissibility of any particular evidence and, therefore, that the convictions of Appellants under Counts One and Two must be reversed. Appellants also assert that, as a consequence of this insufficiency, the convictions of Appellants under Count Three— for using a firearm in connection with the extortion-related crimes — must also be reversed. Finally, Lin challenges the District Court’s denials of his requests to be examined by an independent psychologist and to have a competency hearing.6

DISCUSSION

I. Sufficiency of the Evidence

As noted above, Appellants contend that the evidence adduced at trial was insufficient to sustain the convictions of Appellants on the extortion-related crimes charged in Counts One and Two and, concomitantly, on the firearm crime charged in Count Three. The standard under which we review a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence in a criminal trial is familiar:

Á defendant challenging a conviction based on a claim of insufficiency of the evidence bears a heavy burden. The evidence presented at trial should be viewed in the light most favorable to the Government, crediting every inference that the jury might have drawn in favor of the Government. We consider the *370evidence presented at trial in its totality, not in isolation, but may not substitute our own determinations of credibility or relative weight of the evidence for that of the jury. We defer to the jury’s determination of the weight of the evidence and the credibility of the witnesses, and to the jury’s choice of the competing inferences that can be drawn from the evidence. Accordingly, we will not disturb a conviction on grounds of legal insufficiency of the evidence at trial if any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.

Bruno, 383 F.3d at 82 (quoting Dhinsa, 243 F.3d at 648-49 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted)).

A. The Crimes Charged

Appellants were charged in Counts One through Three of the Indictment, respectively, as follows:

[Chen Xiang and Lin Xian Wu] unlawfully, willfully and knowingly combined, conspired, confederated and agreed together and with each other to commit extortion, as the term is defined in [18 U.S.C. § 1951(b)(2)], by conspiring to obtain property from and with the consent of others, to wit, occupants of a business located at 75 Eldridge Street, New York, New York, which consent would be and was induced by the wrongful use of actual and threatened force, violence and fear ....

[Chen Xiang and Lin Xian Wu] unlawfully, willfully and knowingly did commit extortion, as that term is defined in [18 U.S.C. § 1951(b)(2) ], and did attempt so to do, by the obtaining of property from and with the consent of others, to wit, occupants of a business located at 75 Eldridge Street, New York, New York, which consent was induced by the wrongful use of actual and threatened force, violence and fear ....

[Chen Xiang and Lin Xian Wu] unlawfully, willfully and knowingly used, carried and brandished a firearm during and in relation to ... the crimes charged in Counts One and Two of this Indictment.

B. The Essential Elements

In order to prove a conspiracy in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951 (“the Hobbes Act”), the Government must show that two or more persons entered into an agreement to commit the substantive offense as charged. See. e.g., United States v. Clemente, 22 F.3d 477, 480 (2d Cir.1994) (holding that conspiracy under the Hobbes Act requires proof of an agreement but that no overt act need be shown). “In order to convict a given defendant of conspiracy, the [G]overnment must prove that he knew of the conspiracy and joined it with the intent to commit the offenses that were its objectives, that is, with the affirmative intent to make the conspiracy succeed.” United States v. Ceballos, 340 F.3d 115, 123-24 (2d Cir.2003) (citations omitted).

“The agreement that is the gist of conspiracy may be tacit rather than explicit .... ” Ceballos, 340 F.3d at 124. “However, knowledge of the existence and goals of a conspiracy does not of itself make one a coconspirator.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted); see, e.g., Direct Sales Co. v. United States, 319 U.S. 703, 711, 63 S.Ct. 1265, 87 L.Ed. 1674 (1943) (holding that the essence of a conspiracy is not mere knowledge of another’s illegal purpose, but the intent to “further, promote[,] and cooperate in it”). In other words, the defendant’s “ ‘attitude towards the forbidden undertaking must be more positive,’ ” United States v. Cianchetti, 315 F.2d 584, 588 (2d Cir.1963) (quoting United States v. *371 Falcone, 109 F.2d 579, 581 (2d Cir.1940), aff'd 311 U.S. 205, 61 S.Ct. 204, 85 L.Ed. 128 (1940)); he must somehow have made “an affirmative attempt to further its purposes,” id.; accord Ceballos, 340 F.3d at 124.

Here, the object of the alleged conspiracy was to commit extortion, which, in the context of federal crimes, in relevant part, “means the obtaining of property from another, with, his consent, induced by wrongful use of actual or threatened force, violence, or fear.” 18 U.S.C. § 1951(b)(2) (emphasis added). Extortion is frequently exemplified by “revenue-producing measures ... utilized by organized crime to generate income”—measures “such as shakedown rackets and loan-sharking.” United States v. Nardello, 393 U.S. 286, 295, 89 S.Ct. 534, 21 L.Ed.2d 487 (1969).7 Of course, another familiar form of extortion is blackmail—where, for example, the extortioner obtains money from the victim by threatening to expose private or embarrassing conduct. See id. at 295-96, 89 S.Ct. 534 (describing how the extortioner threatened to expose the alleged homosexuality of the victims).

Choice on the part of the victim is a common theme in all extortion cases. As noted above, “the Hobbs Act definition of coercion speaks of obtaining property from another ‘with his consent.’ ” United States v. Arena, 180 F.3d 380, 394 (2d Cir.1999). Indeed, “[t]he legislative history of the Act makes clear that its proponents understood extortion to encompass situations in which a victim is given the option of relinquishing some property immediately or risking unlawful violence resulting in other losses, and he simply chooses what he perceives to be the lesser harm.” Id. at 395 (emphasis added) (citing 91 Cong. Rec. 11,904, 11,907 (discussing decision of business owner to pay tribute to extortionists rather than risk the physical destruction of his trucks: “The man pays the money to save himself and his property.”)). “In order to foreclose any argument by an extortionist that the relinquishment of property in such circumstances was [truly] voluntary, [however,] the Hobbs Act definition of extortion simply prohibits the extortionist from forcing the victim to make such a choice.” Id.

At bottom, undeniably, the victim of an extortion acts from fear, whether of violence or exposure. But both the language of the statute and the relevant precedents make clear that he or she always retains some degree of choice in whether to comply with the extortionate threat, however much of a Hobson’s choice that may be. Indeed, this element of consent is the razor’s edge that distinguishes extortion from robbery, which, in contrast, is defined in pertinent part as

the unlawful taking or obtaining of personal property from the person or in the presence of another, against his will, by means of actual or threatened force, or violence, or fear of injury, immediate or future, to his person or property, or property in his custody or possession, or the person or property of a relative or member of his family or of anyone in his company at the time of the taking or obtaining.

18 U.S.C. § 1951(b)(1) (emphasis added).

Among the essential elements of the federal crime of extortion, then, are (i) the defendant’s “use of actual or threatened force, violence, or fear,” and (ii) the *372victim’s consent — however forced — to the transfer of the property. 18 U.S.C. § 1951(b)(2). And concordantly, essential to a determination of conspiracy to commit extortion are (i) an agreement to use actual or threatened force to obtain property with the consent of the victim and (ii) actions taken in affirmative furtherance of that agreement. See Cianchetti, 315 F.2d at 588 (reversing conviction for conspiracy to violate drug law because “there was no fixed agreement to cooperate” and defendant “did noting to further the success of the enterprise”).

Here, the Government’s theory is that Appellants conspired to extort — and in fact committed extortion, and not robbery— when they “informed Hua by telephone that [Xiao] was coming to the gambling parlor to collect $10,000 from him,” instructing him to leave the money for Xiao’s pick-up in a red envelope, and, later, when they “summoned Hua outside the parlor and attempted to collect the money that had been demanded in the extortionate telephone call.” The Government contends that “[t]his call clearly represented a request, albeit under duress, for the money, rather than a forcible taking.” “After all,” the Government observes, “robbers typically do not telephone in their requests to victims ahead of time.” In making this distinction between robbery and extortion, however, the Government fails to identify any element of “duress,” either express or implied, in the telephone call, thus calling into question whether the Government has proved each and every element of the extortion-related crimes charged in the Indictment, as required by fundamental precepts of our law.8

C. The Evidence Presented

Here, the Government sought to prove the extortion-related charges primarily through the testimony of Xiao, a co-defendant and cooperating witness, and of Hua, the victim of the gang’s criminal conduct at 75 Eldridge Street. Hua, too, was cooperating with the Government — in his case, to avoid prosecution for his involvement in the gambling operation, for entering and working illegally in the United States, and for failure to report income.

Regarding the at-issue crime(s) committed at 75 Eldridge Street on July 23, 2001, Xiao — who, as detailed above, played a key role in all of the charged crimes — testified as follows:

Q. When did you first talk with the defendants about doing the robbery at 75 Eldridge Street?

A. On [July 23, 2001],

Q. Other than you, Ah Oo[,] and Yi Soon Gang, was anybody else participating in the conversation at your apartment about doing a robbery at 75 Eldridge Street?9

A. No.

Q. Of the three of [you — you, Ah Oo, and Yi Soon Gang — who] brought up the idea of robbing the gambling parlor at 75 Eldridge Street?

A. AhOo.

Q. What did Ah Oo say to you about this?

A. He said there is someone up there who could open up the door and we could go there to do the robbery.

*373Q. Did anyone else agree to do that robbery with the three of you?

A. Yes.

Q. Who?

A. Yi Guan.

Q. Where did you, Ah Oo[,] and Yi Soon Gang meet Yi Guan to go to 75 Eldridge Street?

A. Brooklyn.

Q. How did the four of you travel to 75 Eldridge Street?

A. We drove.

Xiao further testified that the four men — Appellants, Xiao, and Li Wei — drove together to 75 Eldridge Street, at approximately “five o’clock to seven o’clock.”10 He stated that they had attempted to gain entrance to the gambling parlor, but had been prevented from doing so by someone standing watch outside.

The testimony continued:

Q. And what happened after you were refused entry to the ... gambling parlor by the watch person?

A. A boss was called to come outside. [Hua then came outside.]

Q. Where were the four of you when you had that conversation with the boss of the gambling parlor?

A. Outside the door.

Q. The door to 75 Eldridge?

A. [Yes],

Q. What did you say to that boss of the gambling parlor?

A. Do you have any money on you? Why can’t we ... go inside?

Q. What, if anything, did the boss say back to you?

A. He did not answer.

Q. Did he give you any money at that time?

A. No.

Xiao further testified that all four had guns with them. Chen waved his gun, and Li Wei poked Hua in the stomach with his gun.

The testimony continued:

Q. As [Li Wei] was poking the boss’ stomach with his gun, did you hear [Li Wei] say anything at that time?

A. You believe me, I will kill you.

Q. What, if anything, did you do to the owner when he did not give you any money?

A. Yes, I slammed him on the face and I grabbed his necklace.

Q. What did you do with the necklace as you grabbed it?

A. I took it.

Q. What happened next?

A. We then drove home.

Hua, the victim of the 75 Eldridge Street crime, testified as follows regarding the above-noted telephone call that he received on July 23, 2001:

Q. Did you receive any telephone calls at the gambling parlor on July 23, 2001?

A. Yes.

Q. How many telephone calls did you receive that day?

A. One call.

Q. Approximately what time was it that you received that one telephone call?

A. At around six something.

*374Q. Is that in the afternoon, early evening?

A. In the evening.

Q. Was the caller male or female?

A. A male.

Q. Did he identify himself by name?

A. He did. He identified himself as Vietnamese [B]oy, 11 and he demanded money from me.

Q. What language did he speak?

A. In Foo Chow.

Q. And what specifically did he say to you?

A. He said Vietnamese [B]oy, he will come over to me to pick up money and I should give him $10,000.

Q. Did the caller say, Vietnamese [B]oy will come and pick up the money or did the caller say, I, Vietnamese [B]oy, will come and pick up money?

A. No. He said Vietnamese [B]oy will come and pick it up.

Q. Did he say anything about how Vietnamese [B]oy [would] pick up that money?

A. He said that I should put it in the red envelope, $10,000 worth, inside the red envelope.

Q. What, if anything, did you say to the caller?

A. I said I have no money.

Q. Did the caller say anything back to you at that point?

A. No. I h[u]ng up the phone.

Hua further testified that four individuals came to 75 Eldridge Street at approximately 8:00 p.m. on July 23, 2001. These individuals asked another employee of the gambling parlor to summon Hua outside. When Hua went outside, four individuals were waiting, pointing guns at him. Thereafter, Xiao, aka “Vietnamese Boy,” asked Hua for $10,000. When Hua said that he had no money, one of the other men poked Hua in the side with his gun, and Xiao hit Hua on his head. Xiao then ripped the necklace from Hua’s neck, after which all four of the men got into a car and drove off.

The Government also relied on the plea allocution of Li Wei to support the existence of a conspiracy to extort.12 In his plea hearing, Li Wei allocuted as follows:

Court: Did you commit the offense for which you have been charged?

Defendant: Yes.

Court: Please tell me in your own words what you did.

Defendant: On July 23rd, I went to 75 Eldridge Street with my co-defendant.

Court: July 23rd of what year?

Defendant: 2001.

Court: All right. And you went where, sir?

Defendant: 75 Eldridge Street.

Court: All right.

Defendant: To do the extortion that was on the indictment, to take money.

Court: To take money from whom?

*375Defendant: The owner of 75 [Eldridge Street],

Court: The owner of that building?

Defendant: Yes.

Court: Where is that address? Is that in Manhattan?

Defendant: Yes.

Court: And you agreed to do this with your co-defendant?

Defendant: Yes.

[Court]: Mr. Li, when you committed this act, you agreed with your co-defendant to do this extortion, as you say, did you agree to use force to . obtain this money?

Defendant: Yes.

Court: Or with the threat of force?

Defendant: Yes.

D. Analysis: Sufficiency of the Evidence

We are aware that “[c]ourts have interpreted the language [of] the Hobbs Act very broadly.” United States v. Arena, 894 F.Supp. 580, 587 (S.D.N.Y.1995). Nonetheless, we are bound by the fundamental principle that “the Due Process Clause protects the accused against conviction except upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to constitute the crime with which he is charged.” In re Winship, 397 U.S. at 364, 90 S.Ct. 1068. Here, it seems to us inescapable thai this standard has not been met.

The Indictment clearly and expressly charges Appellants with conspiring “to commit extortion, as the term is defined in [18 U.S.C. § 1951(b)(2) ], by conspiring to obtain property from and with the consent of others, ... which consent would be and was induced by the wrongful use of actual and threatened force, violence and fear.” The jury charge, too, expressly recited “the victim’s con[s]ent” as an element of extortion. There is nothing in the Record, however, to suggest that there was an agreement to obtain the property of either Hua or the gambling operation at 75- El-dridge by consent — forced or otherwise.' An inference may fairly be drawn that Appellants and others agreed to visit the 75 Eldridge Street parlor- to rob it, but that is all.

In particular, the evidence establishes that on at least eight separate occasions, Xiáo discussed an agreement between himself, Appellants, and others. But each time the criminal conduct was discussed, it was in terms of a robbery. Extortion was neither spoken of nor apparently ever contemplated. Indeed, not a single fact was elicited from Xiao that could lead to an inference that a co-conspirator planned, or agreed, to extort — as opposed to rob — the gambling parlor at 75 Eldridge Street or any individual at that location.

Again, absent from the Record is any indication that Appellants thought, or sought, to obtain property from Hua, or anyone else at 75 Eldridge Street, by means of a forced consent. Rather, the Record supports an agreement among, and an actual effort by, Appellants and others to get a person at that location to .open a door so that Appellants and others could enter the establishment and rob it. Indeed, this very method of robbery was discussed. But the only evidence that even arguably can be identified as indicating extortion came from Hua, who testified that he was gambling at the 75 Eldridge Street parlor when he received a phone call, either from Xiao or someone on Xiao’s behalf.

Hua testified that the caller demanded $10,000. Hua refused and hung up the phone. Later, Hua was summoned to *376come outside the parlor, where he was confronted by Xiao, Appellants, and another gangster, all of whom were pointing guns at Hua. Xiao demanded $10,000, and Hua refused, informing the gangsters that, he had no money. Xiao then hit Hua in the head, grabbing the chain from around his neck, and the gang fled. Xiao testified that the chain was later sold and that he, Appellant, and Li Wei then split the proceeds. It seems inescapable that this incident was nothing more nor less than a classic robbery.

Absent from Hua’s testimony is any suggestion that either Appellant was even involved in the alleged extortionate phone call. Hua’s testimony was inconsistent as to the identity of the caller, and he never identified either of the Appellants as the caller. The Government argues that Appellants must have been involved, because the call was placed after the gang formed up in Brooklyn and during the time that Xiao recalls traveling to 75 Eldridge. It is true that both the caller and the gang demanded $10,000, supporting the inference that it was one of the gangsters who placed the call. But even disregarding the uncertainty and vagueness of the timeline established by Xiao’s testimony and assuming arguendo that the gangsters made the call, absent from Hua’s testimony is any suggestion that the call itself conveyed any degree of threat — implied or express, violent or otherwise. Thus, either accepting Hua’s testimony alone, or-viewing it in conjunction with Xiao’s testimony (as the jury was instructed to do), the evidence does not support any inference of a threat in the phone call.

The Government contends,- however, that the fact of the phone call combined with the facts surrounding the gang’s visit to 75 Eldridge reasonably supports the inference that the purpose of the call was to extort, since the demand for $10,000, which was initially made by telephone, was then repeated by the gang in person before they resorted to violence and took the chain. Thus, concludes the Government, the phone call was both an attempted extortion and an act in furtherance of an extortion conspiracy. But again, there was no testimony that the call itself was threatening in any way. Nor was there any testimony from Xiao, or any other witness,-to fill this gap and place the call in a threatening and thus- extortionate context.

The caller recited no consequences — deleterious or otherwise — of a failure to tender the $10,000, and no evidence was put before the jury suggesting that any such consequences were implied by the caller or understood implicitly by Hua. Moreover, there was nothing in Hua’s testimony from which one could reasonably infer that he was placed in a subjective state of fear, or felt threatened in any way, by the call. Hua testified that Xiao “was somewhat familiar” to him; that he had seen Xiao “once or twice in Chinatown”; -and that he knew Xiao by the name “Vietnamese [B]oy.” But Hua said nothing from which a juror could reasonably infer that Xiao was feared in the neighborhood or known to be involved in criminal activities; nor was there anything else in the Record to support such an inference.13 Thus, the mere fact that the caller, whom Hua could not identify, stated that “Vietnamese Boy” would come to Hua’s gambling parlor to pick up the demanded $10,000 cannot support a rational inference that Hua was threatened or placed in fear by the caller. If the name “Vietnamese Boy” was intended to strike fear in the heart of Hua, there is simply no evidence that it in fact did so. *377Indeed, that Hua hung up the phone after stating simply that he had no money suggests that he saw no negative consequences in refusing to consent to the demand or, for that matter, in ignoring the call altogether.

It is notable that during Xiao’s testimony, he had ample opportunity to convey information indicating that he had agreed and planned with Appellants to extort Hua or the gambling business. But he never conveyed any such information. Rather, Xiao repeatedly described a robbery that was initiated and planned by him and Appellants. Indeed, as the gang arrived at 75 Eldridge and when they summoned Hua outside, their guns were already drawn and, thus, a robbery was then taking place. This was, therefore, not the culmination of an unsuccessful extortion or unfruitful extortion conspiracy but, rather, a full-fledged robbery under way.

A robbery plus a cryptic and ambiguous phone call does not equal extortion — at least, not on the facts presented to us in this case. And without some evidence in the Record to support the charges of extortion and conspiracy to extort, there was nothing to permit a rational jur'or to infer that what the defendants were about was anything other than a robbery and/or conspiracy to rob. Cf., e.g., Ceballos, 340 F.3d at 129-30.

Even considering the improperly admitted plea allocution of Li Wei, there simply was no evidence of an agreement to obtain property from Hua or anyone else with their consent through the threat or use of force, nor of any actual effort or attempt to do so. And, as discussed above, it is this notion that the victim of extortion consents to the taking — albeit through threat or force — that separates extortion from robbery. Indeed, in the Indictment, the Government charged Appellants with agreeing, intending, and attempting to take (Count One), and of taking (Count Two), with consent. But again, the Record contains no evidence that Appellants agreed, intended, or attempted to take with consent, by threat, the property of individuals associated with the gambling business at 75 Eldridge Street or that of the business itself, and Li Wei’s plea allocution does not cure this deficiency. Indeed, his statement that, on July 23rd, he “went to 75 Eldridge Street” with Appellants “[t]o do the extortion that was on the indictment, to take money” merely recites an ultimate legal conclusion without setting forth the requisite factual basis to support that conclusion.14

In light of all the foregoing, we conclude that thé evidence put forward by the Government to prove the charged extortion and conspiracy to extort, even viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, was insufficient as a matter of law to prove the crimes charged in Counts One and Two of the Indictment. At best, the evidence proves an uncharged conspiracy to rob, and the robbery of, an individual at 75 Eldridge Steet. Accordingly, we reverse the convictions of Appellants under Counts One and Two, for the crimes of conspiracy to extort and extortion, respectively.

E. Section 924-(c)

Appellants contend that the legal insufficiency of the evidence of the extor*378tion-related charges necessarily warrants reversal of the convictions of Appellants under the related firearm charge — for violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A) charged in Count Three. This statute creates a separate offense and provides a separate sentence for one who, “during and in relation to any crime of violence ... for which the person may be prosecuted in a court of the United States, uses or carries a firearm or who, in furtherance of any such crime, possesses a firearm.” Three elements comprise a § 924(c) violation: “First, the defendant must have used or carried a firearm.... Second, the government must prove the defendant used or carried a firearm knowingly---- [And third], the firearm must have been used or carried during and in relation to the underlying offense.” United States v. Dese-na, 287 F.3d 170, 180 (2d Cir.2002) (internal quotation marks omitted). At issue here is the meaning of the third element.

Appellants would have us rule that to satisfy that element, and as a prerequisite to a conviction under § 924, a defendant must be convicted of the predicate offense. While our Court has not previously had the opportunity to examine the question of what quantum of proof of a predicate offense must be established to sustain a related firearm conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A), a number of our sister circuits have addressed this issue. And to sustain a § 924 conviction, those courts have invariably required that there be some legally cognizable quantum of proof of the predicate offense.15 See United States v. Lake, 150 F.3d 269, 275 (3d Cir.1998) (“In a prosecution under [section 924(c) ], the [Government must prove that the defendant committed a qualifying predicate offense .... ”); accord United States v. Jenkins, 90 F.3d 814, 821 (3d Cir.1996); see also Frye, 402 F.3d at 1128 (“‘[A] defendant charged with violating section 924(c)(1) must be proven to have committed the underlying crime ....’” (quoting Hunter, 887 F.2d at 1003)).16

While we do not, today, seek to map the farthest reaches of the statute, we think it consistent with both due process and the opinions of our sister circuits to hold that if the proof of the predicate crime is so fundamentally deficient that it could not sustain a conviction, then likewise, a conviction under § 924 cannot *379stand. Indeed, because the commission of the underlying predicate offense is a necessary element of a conviction under § 924(c), both logic and precedent dictate that there must be legally sufficient proof of the underlying offense. See, e.g., United States v. Macklin, 671 F.2d 60, 65 (2d Cir.1982) (“It is axiomatic that, in a criminal case, the [G]overnment must prove each and every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.”); see also In Re Winship, 397 U.S. at 364, 90 S.Ct. 1068. Without such proof, the third element of § 924(c) simply has not been established, and a conviction under the statute cannot be sustained.

Here, since we conclude—in light of the quantum of evidence adduced in this case—that no rational jury could have convicted the Appellants of the charged extortion-related crimes, we also conclude that the convictions of Appellants under Count Three, for violating § 924 in connection with the extortion-related crimes, must be reversed as well.

II. Lin’s Mental Competence

A hearing to determine the mental competency of a criminal defendant “is required only if the court has ‘reasonable cause’ to believe that the defendant has a mental defect rendering him incompetent.” United States v. Nichols, 56 F.3d 403, 414 (2d Cir.1995) (quoting 18 U.S.C. § 4241(a)); see Pate v. Robinson, 383 U.S. 375, 385-86, 86 S.Ct. 836, 15 L.Ed.2d 815 (1966) (holding that due process may require a competency hearing to be held); see also Nicks v. United States, 955 F.2d 161, 168 (2d Cir.1992) (finding standards under § 4241 and due process essentially equivalent). “Because the necessity for a competency hearing varies in each case, depending upon a number of factors concerning defendant’s behavior and inferences which might be drawn from psychiatrists’ reports, the determination of whether there is reasonable cause to believe a defendant may be incompetent rests in the discretion of the district court.” Nichols, 56 F.3d at 414 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted); see also Drope v. Missouri, 420 U.S. 162, 180, 95 S.Ct. 896, 43 L.Ed.2d 103 (1975) (“There are, of course, no fixed or immutable signs which invariably indicate the need for further inquiry to determine fitness to proceed .... ”).

“In deciding that an evidentiary hearing is unnecessary, a court may rely not only on psychiatrists’ reports indicating competency but also on its own observations of the defendant.” Nichols, 56 F.3d at 414 (citations omitted). In United States v. Oliver, 626 F.2d 254 (2d Cir.1980), for example, this Court upheld the district court’s denial of a psychiatric examination and hearing “based solely on the judge’s direct observation and questioning of the defendant, despite evidence of the defendant’s low intelligence, prior history of-heavy drug use, lapses of memory, and unresponsiveness.” Nichols, 56 F.3d at 414 (citing Oliver, 626 F.2d at 258-59).

Here, Lin argues that the District Court abused its discretion in refusing to grant him a competency hearing after the Government revealed that there was cause to “question” the “credibility and accuracy” of the report submitted by Dr. Patenaude, the first prison psychologist to examine Lin. Lin further asserts that, in light of this revelation, he should have been examined by an “independent” psychologist— presumably, one mutually agreeable to Lin and the Government—rather than by another psychologist affiliated with, and selected by, the BOP, and that the court abused its discretion in refusing this request as well.

We disagree. That reasons came to light to question one prison psycholo*380gist’s findings does not compel the conclusion that the findings of any psychologist affiliated with the BOP would necessarily also be suspect. Indeed, quite the opposite: The fact that the BOP came forward proactively and apparently sua sponte with the information that led this Court to grant Lin the right to seek a second evaluation tends to prove that the Government was concerned with the veracity of the evaluation process, which in turn lends support to the District Court’s decision to rely on a second prison psychologist despite what had occurred previously. Moreover, it seems to us both reasonable and expeditious in this context to rely on the expertise of a forensic psychologist associated with the BOP, since psychologists working routinely in a penal setting are presumably familiar with patients similarly situated to Lin. It goes without saying, of course, that psychologists employed by the BOP, despite their affiliation with the Government, are bound by the same ethical and professional canons as their non-Government-affiliated colleagues. In any event, we see no abuse of discretion in the District Court’s selection of Dr. Rattan to evaluate Lin the second time.

We also reject Lin’s contention that he was entitled to a competency hearing. At bottom, Lin’s attorneys contend that because Lin consistently laughed in the face of the serious consequences of his actions and because he scored poorly on tests designed to measure his “problem-solving and reasoning” skills and had “difficulty with managing nonverbal information, perceiving visual data, organizing spatially oriented material, [and] mastering the abstract properties of visually presented symbols,” Lin probably was not competent to stand trial and be sentenced. Therefore, counsel contends, the District Court abused its discretion in failing to find “reasonable cause to believe that [Lin had] a mental defect rendering him incompetent.” Nichols, 56 F.3d at 414 (2d Cir.1995) (internal quotation marks omitted). We are unpersuaded.

We note that Dr. Rattan’s “principal working diagnosis” of Lin was “Adult Antisocial Behavior.” According to Dr. Rattan, this diagnosis was “considered less severe” than Lin’s previous (and now discredited) diagnosis of Antisocial Personality Disorder (or “APD”). Whereas the earlier diagnosis of APD was purportedly based on “a lifelong pattern of [Lin] relating to others in a maladaptive manner that [was] not thought subject to psychological treatment,” Dr. Rattan found “a lack of obtained evidence suggestive of ... behavioral disturbance prior to age [fifteen] ... and a lack of criteria met for APD on review of adult behavior.” Moreover, Dr. Rattan made the “[t]he diagnosis of Adult Antisocial Behavior ... per se on the basis of [Lin’s] conviction in this matter.” Finally, it is notable that Dr. Rattan found that the “lessening of diagnostic severity ... [was] seen as prognostic regarding [Lin’s] adjustment to an institutional setting.”

In any event, despite the noted findings, the bottom line of Dr. Rattan’s evaluation was that Lin “appeared competent for both trial and sentencing” (emphasis added). In particular, Dr. Rattan noted that Lin’s

performance on testing, although poor, was not consistent with function of those persons diagnosed with [mild mental retardation, or “Mild MR”]. Additionally, a review of [Lin’s] adaptive functions, required for a finding of Mild MR, suggests his “real world” function was probably in excess of formalized testing results. Specifically, [Lin’s] report of his illicit immigration, his use of “employment agencies,” his ability to speak some English despite his embeddedness in “China Town,” and frequent independent travel to “out of state” work sites *381is not consistent with the function of persons with Mild MR. His reliance on living with relatives in the United States is not culturally atypical, nor uncommon for relatively recent immigrants. Finally, a certain degree of deception was required for [Lin] during his. immigration and subsequent stay in the United States. Such “successful” deception, taken in context, is not likely consistent with the function of a person suffering from Mild MR.

Notably, Dr. Rattan also observed that Lin “was, and is, defensive, stubborn, and evasive regarding details of his case” and that, while these traits are “not considered a mental disease or defect,” they probably did “form the basis for [Lin’s] counsel’s concerns about [Lin’s] likely poor judgment and decision-making regarding his rejection of a plea offer in this matter.”

In light of Dr. Rattan’s evaluation as a whole, and mindful that the District Court observed Lin first-hand over a substantial period of time, we see no abuse of discretion on the part of the court in relying on Dr. Rattan’s findings, and on its own observations, in determining ultimately that there was no “reasonable cause,” 18 U.S.C. § 4241(a), to support the proposition that Lin “ha[d] a mental defect rendering him incompetent,” Nichols, 56 F.3d at 414.

III. Resentencing

The Government has conceded that a partial remand, pursuant to United States v. Crosby, 397 F.3d 103 (2d Cir.2005), is warranted.17 Where a criminal conviction is partly set aside, however, the typical course is simply to remand for resentencing. See, e.g., United States v. Boissoneault, 926 F.2d 230, 235 (2d Cir.1991); United States v. Swiderski, 548 F.2d 445, 452 (2d Cir.1977).18 In any event, “[t]his Court has power to do justice as the case requires.” Tinder v. United States, 345 U.S. 565, 570, 73 S.Ct. 911, 97 L.Ed. 1250 (1953); see 28 U.S.C. § 2106. In light of the District Judge’s reliance on the cumulative effect of Deal and in view of our reversal of the convictions of Appellants on Counts One, Two, and Three, we remand for resentencing on the remaining counts.

$ $ :H $ H«

In view of our disposition of these appeals, we decline to reach the arguments of Appellants concerning the admissibility of certain evidence under the Federal Rules of Evidence and/or Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 124 S.Ct. 1354, 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004). We have considered the parties’ remaining arguments and find them to be without merit..

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the judgments are reversed insofar as they reflect the convictions of Appellants under Counts One, Two, and Three. The matters are remanded for entry of amended judgments dismissing those counts and for resentenc-ing by the District Court on the remaining counts.

KEARSE, Circuit Judge:

Defendants Autumn Jackson, Jose Medina, and Boris Sabas appeal from judgments of conviction entered in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York following a jury trial before Barbara S. Jones, Judge. Jackson and Medina were convicted of threatening to injure another person’s reputation with the intent to extort money, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 875(d) and 2 (1994); all three defendants were convicted of traveling across state lines to promote extortion, in violation of the Travel Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1952(a)(3) and 2 (1994), and conspiring to commit extortion, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371 (1994). Sabas was found not guilty of making extortionate threats. Jackson, Medina, and Sabas were sentenced principally to 26, 63, and 3 months’ *59imprisonment, respectively, with each defendant’s term of imprisonment to be followed by a three-year period of supervised release. On appeal, defendants contend chiefly that the district court failed to give proper jury instructions as to the nature of extortion. For the reasons that follow, we agree, and we accordingly vacate the judgments and remand for a new trial.

I. BACKGROUND

The present prosecution arises out of defendants’ attempts to obtain up to $40 million from William H. (“Bill”) Cosby, Jr., a well-known actor and entertainer, by threatening to cause tabloid newspapers to publish Jackson’s claim to be Cosby’s daughter out-of-wedlock. The witnesses at trial included Cosby, Jackson’s grandmother, persons who had conversations with Jackson in which she demanded money from Cosby and threatened to injure his reputation if he did not pay, and a cooperating witness who had attended meetings during which defendants formulated and executed parts of their plan. The government also introduced, inter alia, recordings of messages left by Jackson, recordings of conversations in which Jackson demanded money from Cosby and threatened to injure his reputation if she were not paid, and documents found in the possession of Medina and Sabas. Taken in the light most favorable to the government, the evidence showed the following.

A. Jackson’s Relationship With Cosby

In the early 1970s, Cosby had a brief extramarital affair with Jackson’s mother, Shawn Thompson. After Jackson was born in 1974, Thompson told Cosby that he was the father. Cosby disputed that assertion, and according to Jackson’s birth certificate, her father was one Gerald Jackson. Jackson’s grandmother testified, however, that she and Thompson told Jackson, as Jackson was growing up, that Cosby was her biological father. The grandmother told Jackson that Cosby had said that, so long as they “didn’t tell anyone about it, that he would take care of her mother and her, and take care of his responsibility.” (Trial Transcript (“Tr.”), 1459.)

For more than 20 years after Jackson’s birth, Cosby provided Thompson with substantial sums of money, provided her with a car, and paid for her admission to substance-abuse treatment programs. Thompson repeatedly telephoned him saying that she needed money, and in the course of the conversations she would usually reiterate her claim that Cosby was Jackson’s father and state that she did not want to embarrass Cosby’s wife. Between 1974 and mid-1994, Cosby gave Thompson a total of more than $100,000, typically having traveler’s checks or cashier’s checks issued in the name of an employee rather than his own name. In 1994, Cosby established a trust fund for Thompson, which was administered by John P. Schmitt, a partner in the New York City law firm that represented Cosby. The trust fund provided Thompson with $750 a week for as long as Cosby chose to fund the trust. Thompson received approximately $100,000 in payments from this fund from mid-1994 until the fund was exhausted, and not replenished, in early 1997.

In addition, Cosby, who had funded college educations for some 300 persons outside of his own immediate family, and had spoken with Jackson by telephone at least once during her childhood, had offered to pay for the education of Jackson and of Thompson’s other two children. In about 1990, after a telephone conversation with Jackson’s grandmother, Cosby became concerned that Jackson’s education was being hampered by conditions at her California home, and he arranged to have Jackson finish high school at a preparatory school in Florida associated with a Florida college. Cosby thereafter also created a trust to pay for Jackson’s college tuition and for certain personal expenses such as food, rent, utilities, and medical costs while Jackson was attending college. This trust *60was administered by Schmitt’s law partner Susan F. Bloom. Jackson subsequently enrolled in a community college in Florida. While Jackson was in school, Cosby spoke with her by telephone approximately 15 times to encourage her to pursue her education, telling her that although he was not her father, he “loved her very, very much” and would be a “father figure” for her. In these conversations, she addressed him as “Mr. Cosby.”

In April 1995, Bloom learned that Jackson had dropped out of college, and Bloom therefore ceased making payments to Jackson from the college education trust. From the spring of 1995 until December 1996, Jackson had no contact with Cosby or any of his attorneys.

B. The Events of December 1996 and early January 1997

In the fall of 1996, Jackson and her then-fíancé Antonay Williams were living in California and working for a production company in Burbank, California, headed by Medina. Medina’s company, which operated out of his hotel suite, was attempting to produce a children’s television show. Jackson, Williams, and Sabas had acting roles in the show; along with cooperating witness Placido Macaraeg, they also had administrative positions. Jackson worked without pay, but she expected to receive a commission when the television show was sold.

In December 1996, Jackson reinitiated contact with Cosby. Within a four-day period, she telephoned him seven times and left urgent messages asking him to return her calls. In one instance, Jackson identified herself as “Autumn Cosby,” a message that Cosby perceived as “some sort of threat.” (Tr. 850.) WTien he returned Jackson’s call, he reproached her for using his name. Jackson described the project on which she was working, told Cosby that she was homeless, and asked him to lend her $2100. Cosby initially refused and suggested that she instead get an advance from the person for whom she was working. After further reflection, Cosby called Jackson back and agreed to send her the $2100 she had requested, plus an additional $900; he urged her to return to school, and he renewed his offer to pay for her education. Cosby directed his attorneys to tell Jackson that he would pay for her education and related expenses if she returned to school, maintained a B average, and got a part-time job. Bloom sent Jackson a letter dated December 13, 1996, setting out the conditions and requesting, if Jackson agreed to the conditions, that Jackson sign and return a copy of the letter to Bloom. Jackson did not comply.

On January 2 and 3, 1997, Jackson spoke with Bloom and Schmitt by telephone and asked that she be sent money for food, lodging, and tuition. Bloom responded that Jackson had not shown that she was enrolled in school. Bloom and Schmitt reiterated that Cosby would not pay for Jackson’s support until she enrolled in school and secured employment for eight hours a week; they advised her that her unpaid work at Medina’s production company did not satisfy the condition that she get a part-time job.

Following this rejection of her request for money, Jackson made a series of calls to business associates of Cosby, threatening to publicize her claim to be his daughter and thereby harm his reputation. For example, on January 6, she left a voice-mail message for an administrator at Eastman Kodak Company, whose products Cosby has endorsed. The administrator testified that the caller “said that she was Autumn Jackson, she was the daughter of Dr. William J. [sic] Cosby, Jr., that she knew that Mr. Cosby had a contract with Kodak, and that it was very important that I call her, she was calling in regards to their relationship and his actions or non-actions, and that she was prepared to go to [a] tabloid.” (Tr. 121.)

Also on January 6, Jackson left a voice-mail message for Peter Lund, president *61and chief executive officer of CBS, whose ■television network currently carried Cosby’s prime-time program. Stating that her name was Autumn Jackson, Jackson said:

I am the daughter of Doctor William Cosby, Jr. I need to speak with you, um, regarding, regarding [sic] this relationship, um, that he and I have, and how this will affect CBS if I go to any tabloids .... This is of the ... utmost importance to CBS and his, uh, welfare, so I would, I would [sic ], uh, guess that you would need to call me back as soon as possible.

(Government Exhibit 1R1T.) On January 7, Jackson called Lund’s office at CBS again, leaving a second message identifying herself as Cosby’s daughter and stating that if she were not called back promptly “she would go to the tabloids.” (Tr. 93.)

Later on January 7, Jackson telephoned Schmitt and asked if there was any chance that Cosby “would send her money to live on.” (Tr. 482.) When Schmitt responded in the negative, Jackson said that if she did not receive money from Cosby, she would have to go to the news media. Schmitt testified that he replied that if Jackson meant that “she was planning to go to the news media with what she believed was damaging information and would refrain from doing so only if Mr. Cosby paid her money, that that was extortion, that was both illegal and disgraceful.” (Id.) He also told her that “extortion is a crime in every state.” (Tr. 483.) Jackson stated that she had “checked [it] out and she knew what she was doing.” (Tr. 482-83.)

During the week of January 6, Jackson and Medina discussed ways to intensify the pressure on Cosby and his corporate sponsors. These discussions took place at the evening meetings of Medina’s production staff in the presence of Sabas, Williams, and Macaraeg. Macaraeg testified that the discussions resulted in, inter alia, the mailing on January 10 and 11 of company solicitation letters that, without mentioning Cosby by name, included a paragraph referring to Jackson as the daughter of a “CBS megastar” who was “CBS’s most prized property,” and stating that, contrary to the star’s public image as an advocate of parenting, the star had left Jackson “cold, penniless, and homeless.” (Tr. 968.) Letters containing this paragraph were sent to the President and Vice President of the United States, the Governor of California, the Mayor of New York City, CBS, Eastman Kodak, Philip Morris Company, which was another Cosby sponsor, two publishing companies that had published Cosby’s books, and many other companies. Medina explained that the paragraph would affect Cosby’s sponsors, “put pressure on Bill Cosby,” and “help Autumn out.” (Tr. 956.)

C. The Events of January 15-18, 1997

On January 15, 1997, after the telephone calls and letters of the week before had failed to produce the desired results, Medina and Jackson contacted Christopher Do-herty, a reporter for The Globe tabloid newspaper. Medina and Jackson told Do-herty that Cosby was Jackson’s father and asked what her story would be worth. To support the story, Medina described for Doherty an affidavit in which Jackson had stated (falsely) that Cosby admitted his paternity. Medina faxed Doherty a copy of Bloom’s December 13, 1996 letter to Jackson setting out the terms under which Cosby offered to pay Jackson’s tuition. After some negotiation of terms, Doherty agreed that The Globe would purchase the rights to Jackson’s story of her relationship to Cosby for $25,000.

That evening, Doherty brought to Medina’s hotel a “source agreement,” for the signatures of both Jackson and Medina, setting forth the terms under which The Globe would buy the rights to Jackson’s story. Doherty did not get to meet with Jackson or Medina but dealt instead with Williams, who relayed a number of requests for modifications of the contract. *62Doherty agreed to accommodate all of their requests, but Jackson and Medina refused to sign the source agreement, saying they would deal with it the next day.

The agreement with The Globe was never signed. Instead, on the following morning, January 16, Jackson faxed a copy of the agreement, after obliterating the $25,-000 price, to Schmitt. In addition, Jackson faxed Schmitt a letter stating, “I need monies and I need monies now.” Jackson’s letter stated that it was “urgent” that Schmitt contact her and “make certain arrangements” and asked Schmitt to have Cosby call her that day. The letter concluded:

If I don’t hear from you by today for a discussion about my father and my affairs, then I will have to have someone else in CBS to contact my father for me. I want to talk to my father because I need money and I don’t want to do anything to harm my father in any way, if at all possible to avoid.

Enclosed you will find a copy of a contract that someone is offering monies for my story, which is the only property I have to sell in order to survive.

(Government Exhibit 33.) The fax cover letter directed Schmitt to “R.S.V.P.” to Jackson in Medina’s hotel suite.

Schmitt called Jackson later that morning. Medina, Jackson, Williams, Sabas, and Macaraeg were present when Schmitt called. With Medina mouthing words and passing notes to Jackson, Jackson and Schmitt had the following conversation, in which Jackson asked for $40 million:

SCHMITT: I, I received your letter, Autumn.

JACKSON: Okay.

SCHMITT: [Clears throat] How, how much money are you asking for, Autumn?

JACKSON: I’m wanting to settle, once and finally.

SCHMITT: What, what are you asking for?

JACKSON: I’m asking for 40 million, to settle it completely [pause].

SCHMITT: And if our answer to that is no?

JACKSON: Well, like I said, I have offers, and I will go through with those offers.

SCHMITT: And those offers are to sell your story to the Globe? [Pause]. Autumn, are you there?

JACKSON: Yes I am.

SCHMITT: Is that what you’re referring to, the contract that you sent me, that, for sale to the Globe of your story?

JACKSON: Them, as well as any others. [Pause].

SCHMITT: Well, I’m, I’m sure you know the answer to that is no, Autumn. Thank you very much.

(Government Exhibit 22E8T, at 1.) Jackson asked to have her “father” call her; Schmitt responded that Jackson’s father was “Mr. Jackson,” and that she should “not expect a call from Mr. Cosby.” (Id. at 1-2.) Macaraeg testified that when the conversation ended, Jackson looked frustrated and told the group that Schmitt “doesn’t understand the meaning of the term settlement,” and Medina said, “if [Cosby] doesn’t want this to get out, he’s going to have to pay a lot of money.” (Tr. 995.) Jackson nodded.

Some hours later, Jackson and Medina faxed a letter to CBS president Lund. They attached a copy of the unsigned source agreement with The Globe, again with the price redacted. In the letter, which was signed “Autumn J. Jackson-Cosby” and bore the heading “ATTENTION: PLEASE FORWARD THIS LETTER TO MY FATHER, WILLIAM H. COSBY, JR.,” Jackson said that Cosby’s failure to acknowledge her as his daughter had left her mentally anguished and financially impoverished. Jackson said that because of her “unconditional love ... for [her] father” she did not wish to harm Cosby, his sponsors or publishers, or CBS “[i]n any way, if at all possible to avoid.” *63(Government Exhibit 4.) However, she made reference to the contract with The Globe, saying “if you and my father cannot help me, [it] may possibly be my only means of survival.” (Id.) Jackson’s letter to Lund concluded:

I am willing to decline this offer and all others upon a fair settlement. If my father, CBS, and you are not interested in this settlement, then I am quite sure that NBC, ABC, and other networks will have an interest in hearing my story of desperation reaching out for my father’s love.... [Cosby’s] show and his private life just happens [sic ] to be one of your best properties and this disclosure ... could undoubtedly effect [sic ] your ratings negatively.

(Id.)

When Schmitt informed Cosby of Jackson’s demand for $40 million dollars, Cosby responded that he would not pay, and he directed Schmitt to tell Thompson, Jackson’s mother, of her daughter’s conduct. The next morning, January 17, Schmitt telephoned Thompson and told her that Jackson “was attempting to extort money from Mr. Cosby, and she was threatening to go to the Globe with her story unless she were paid a lot of money.” (Tr. 509.) Thompson then attempted to call Jackson at Medina’s hotel suite, but reached only Medina. In a conversation tape-recorded by Medina, Thompson stated that Jackson was committing a crime by attempting to “blackmail” Cosby:

Autumn for some reason has painted herself into a corner. Instead of doing what ... he asked her to do, which is go to school, enroll, ... [s]he has tried to blackmail him.... I think they used your fax machine.... Um, and said if they don’t give her an exorbitant amount of money, that she’s going to go to the tabloids with her story, and the talk shows.... [S]he’s also told them that she has an unsigned ... contract with Globe magazine to tell her story. Now, that’s extortion when you do it like that. If she was just going to tell her story, that’s what she should have done. But by calling him, calling the attorneys, and talking with the attorney saying “if you don’t give me this money, then I’m going to do that” it’s called extortion, it’s a federal offense.

(Government Exhibit 24E2R2.) That afternoon, Cosby instructed Schmitt to report Jackson’s threats to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”).

At the direction of the FBI agents, Schmitt telephoned Jackson for the purpose of allowing the agents to hear and record her demands. In that conversation, Schmitt told Jackson that Cosby had changed his mind and now wanted to come to an arrangement with her. Schmitt asked Jackson how much money she needed, saying her $40 million demand was unreasonable. Schmitt and Jackson negotiated and eventually arrived at the figure of $24 million. Schmitt told Jackson that she and Medina would have to come to New York to pick up a check. Jackson said that Medina was to receive 25 percent of the money and asked Schmitt to make out one check for $18 million and the other for $6 million. Schmitt made flight arrangements for Jackson, Medina, and Williams to travel from Los Angeles to New York that night, and asked Jackson to meet him in his office the next morning to execute a written agreement and pick up the cheeks.

That evening, Sabas drove Jackson, Medina, and Williams to the airport. Only Jackson and Medina flew to New York; Williams remained in Los Angeles, and Sabas allowed him to use Sabas’s credit card to pay for tickets for Jackson’s and Medina’s return flight to California.

On the morning of January 18, 1997, Jackson and Medina met Schmitt at the offices of his law firm in Manhattan. Jackson and Medina reviewed a draft agreement, prepared by Schmitt under the direction of the FBI, which provided that, in consideration for $24 million, Jackson and Medina would “refrain from providing *64any information whatsoever about Mr. Cosby to any third party,” would “terminate any and all discussion with ... The Globe,” and would “not initiate any further discussions with The Globe or any other media outlet, with respect to Ms. Jackson’s story that she is the daughter of Mr. Cosby.” (Government Exhibit 37A.) When Jackson and Medina had signed, Schmitt left the room on the pretense of getting the checks, and FBI agents entered and arrested Jackson and Medina.

D. Evidence Seized in Postarrest Searches

After the arrests, FBI agents searched Medina’s hotel suite and safe deposit box in California. In the safe deposit box, they found cassette tapes with recordings of many of defendants’ telephone calls. In the hotel suite, they found drafts of Jackson’s letters to Schmitt and Lund, notes of research into Cosby’s sponsors and publishers, and lists of “talking points” for a proposed conversation to be held with Lund, all in Jackson’s handwriting. The agents also found a hand-written plan detailing the steps defendants intended to take to exploit The Globe source agreement and obtain money from Cosby or his sponsors, including such steps such as “Make Copy of Contract^] White-Out Prices” and “Fax Letters to Jack Schmidt [sic] and Peter Lund.” (Government Exhibit 69A3.) The agents also found a note that Jackson had drafted, apparently for Cosby, but never sent. It read in part: “Now, here is my deal. Either I go to the tabloids and/or CBS or we can settle now. That’s what I am willing to do.” (Tr. 1254.)

Thereafter, agents obtained additional tapes and documents that were in the possession of Sabas. They included the original Globe source agreement with the price whited out, letters faxed to Lund and Schmitt, and a tape of the January 16 conversation with Schmitt in which Jackson had demanded the payment of $40 million.

E. The Present Prosecution

The present prosecution was commenced in February 1997. The superseding indictment alleged three counts against each defendant: (1) conspiracy to violate 18 U.S.C. § 875(d) and the Travel Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1952(a)(3), in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371; (2) interstate transmission of threats to injure another person’s reputation with the intent to extort money, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 875(d) and 2; and (3) interstate travel in order to promote extortion, as prohibited by § 875(d) and the New York State extortion statute, N.Y. Penal Law § 155.05(2)(e)(v) (McKinney 1988), in violation of the Travel Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1952(a)(3) and 2. Following a jury trial, Jackson and Medina were convicted on all three counts. Sabas was convicted of conspiracy and violating the Travel Act but was acquitted on the § 875(d) extortion count.

In a posttrial motion defendants moved for dismissal of their convictions on the ground that § 875(d) and the New York State extortion statute, as interpreted in the district court’s jury instructions, see Part II.A. below, are unconstitutionally overbroad or vague. In an opinion published at 986 F.Supp. 829 (S.D.N.Y.1997), the district court denied the motion, ruling that the statutes are not overbroad because they target only extortionate threats, not expressions of ideas or advocacy that typically implicate First Amendment protections, see 986 F.Supp. at 833-35, and because they proscribe only unequivocal and specific “true threats,” see id. at 832-33. The court also found that the statutes in question are not impermis-sibly vague. See id. at 835-37. Judgments of conviction were entered, defendants were sentenced as indicated above, and these appeals followed.

II. DISCUSSION

On appeal, Jackson and Medina contend principally that the district court gave an erroneous jury charge on the elements of *65extortion as prohibited by § 875(d) because it omitted any instruction that, in order to convict, the jury must find that the threat to injure Cosby’s reputation was “wrongful.” Alternatively, they argue that if that section does not include an element of wrongfulness, it is unconstitutionally overbroad and vague. In addition, Medina contends that the district court improperly excluded from evidence portions of the tape recording of his January 17, 1997 conversation with Jackson’s mother; and Sabas contends that the evidence was insufficient to support his conspiracy conviction and that he should have been tried separately from his codefendants. Finding merit in the challenge to the district court’s instructions, we vacate and remand for a new trial.

A. Extortion in Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 875(d)

Section 875(d), the extortion statute under which Jackson and Medina were convicted, provides as follows:

(d) Whoever, with intent to extort from any person ... any money or other thing of value, transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication containing any threat to injure the property or reputation of the addressee or of another ... shall be fined under this title or impiisoned not more than two years, or both.

18 U.S.C. § 875(d). This statute does not define the terms “extort” or “intent to extort.” At trial, Jackson asked the court to instruct the jury that

[t]o act with intent to “extort” means to act with the intent to obtain money or something of value from someone else, with that person’s consent, but caused or induced by the wrongful use of fear,

and to explain that

[t]he term “wrongful” in this regard means that the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt, first, that the defendant had no lawful claim or right to the money or property he or she sought or attempted to obtain, and, second, that the defendant knew that he or she had no lawful claim or right to the money or property he or she sought or attempted to obtain.

If you have a reasonable doubt as to whether a defendant’s object or purpose was to obtain money or other thing of value to which he or she was lawfully entitled, or believed he or she was lawfully entitled, then the defendant would not be acting in a “wrongful” manner and you must find him or her not guilty.

(Jackson’s Requests To Charge Nos. 18, 19 (emphasis in original)).

The court informed the parties that it would not give these requested instructions, stating its view that “threatening someone’s reputation for money or a thing of value is inherently wrongful.” (Tr. 1481.) Consistent with that view, after instructing the jury that a § 875(d) offense has four elements, to wit, (1) an interstate communication, (2) containing a threat to reputation, (3) with intent to communicate such a threat, (4) with intent to extort, the court described the “intent to extort” element as follows, without mentioning any ingredient of wrongfulness:

The fourth element, intent to extort. The final element that the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that the defendant you are considering acted with the intent to extort money or a thing of value from Bill Cosby. You should use your common sense to determine whether the defendant you are considering had the requisite intent to extort. In this connection, to extort means to obtain money or a thing of value from another by use of threats to reputation.

... [I]t is not a defense that the alleged threats to another’s reputation are based on true facts. In other words, it is irrelevant whether Bill Cosby in fact is the father of Autumn Jackson. Rather, you must determine whether the defendant you are considering communi*66cated a threat to injure Bill Cosby’s reputation, and whether that defendant did so with intent to extort money from Bill Cosby.

In addition, if you find that the government has proved beyond a reasonable doubt a particular defendant threatened to injure Bill Cosby’s reputation in order to obtain money from him, it maíces no difference whether the defendant was actually owed any money by Bill Cosby or thought he or she ivas. That is because the law does not permit someone to obtain money or a thing of value by threatening to injure another person’s reputation.

(Tr. 1778-80 (emphases added).)

Although in connection with the counts charging conspiracy and violations of the Travel Act the court instructed the jury that the government was required to proved that the defendant acted with the intent to engage in “unlawful” activity, see Part II.B. below, the court did not use the words “unlawful” or “wrongful” or any equivalent term in its instructions as to the scope of § 875(d).

The government contends that § 875(d) contains no “wrongfulness” requirement, and that even if such a requirement is inferred, threats to injure another person’s reputation are inherently wrongful. These arguments are not without some support. The subsection itself contains no explicit wrongfulness requirement, and it parallels a subsection that prohibits, with intent to extort, a “threat to kidnap” a person, 18 U.S.C. § 875(b), and a “threat to injure the person of another,” id. Given the inherent wrongfulness of kidnaping and assault, the parallelism of subsection (b)’s prohibitions with § 875(d)’s prohibition against threats to injure reputation or property may support an inference that Congress considered threats to injure reputation to be inherently wrongful methods of obtaining money. Such an inference would be consistent with the established principle that, when a threat is made to injure the reputation of another, the truth of the damaging allegations underlying the threat is not a defense to a charge of extortion under § 875(d). See, e.g., United States v. Von der Linden, 561 F.2d 1340, 1341 (9th Cir.1977) (per curiam), cert. denied, 435 U.S. 974, 98 S.Ct. 1621, 56 L.Ed.2d 68 (1978); Keys v. United States, 126 F.2d 181, 185 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 316 U.S. 694, 62 S.Ct. 1296, 86 L.Ed. 1764 (1942); cf. United States v. Pascucci, 943 F.2d 1032, 1033-34, 1036-37 (9th Cir.1991) (§ 875(d) conviction upheld where defendant threatened to send genuine tape of extramarital sexual encounter to victim’s employer).

Further, the government’s suggested interpretation of § 875(d) finds support in United States v. Pignatelli, 125 F.2d 643, 646 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 316 U.S. 680, 62 S.Ct. 1269, 86 L.Ed. 1754 (1942), in which we interpreted a section paralleling a predecessor of § 875(d), which prohibited a person, “with intent to extort from any person any money or other thing of value,” from mailing a “communication ... containing any threat to injure the property or reputation of the addressee or of another,” 18 U.S.C. § 338a(c) (1940). Pignatelli, who had threatened by mail that unless he were paid $500,000 he would state in a book that a relative was falsely using the title of “Prince,” contended on appeal that the trial court improperly excluded evidence showing that Pignatelli himself “had sole right to the title of Prince.” 125 F.2d at 646. He argued that that evidence was relevant because it tended to show that his demands for money were made “in good faith and only in order to adjust pending disputes.” Id. We rejected Pignatelli’s claim, stating as follows:

The book describing the victims as ... swindlers ... was a threat to injure their reputation, pure and simple. It is true that [Pignatelli] was free to publish the facts at the risk of liability in a libel suit, but he was not free to threaten to injure their reputations and to use the mails for that purpose in order to settle his claim. Threats to damage another’s *67 reputation are no proper means for determining a controversy. It may be adjusted either by suit or by compromise but settlement must not be effected by using defamation as a club. The threat to publish the book for such a purpose was unlawful and it made no difference whether [Pignatelli] had the sole right to be called Prince or not.

Id. (emphasis added).

Despite the categorical language of Pignatelli, and despite Congress’s failure either to provide a definition of “extort” for purposes of § 875(d) or to include in § 875(d) the word “wrongful,” we are troubled that § 875(d) should be interpreted to contain no element of wrongfulness, for plainly not all threats to engage in speech that will have the effect of damaging another person’s reputation, even if a forbearance from speaking is conditioned on the payment of money, are wrongful. For example, the purchaser of an allegedly defective product may threaten to complain to a consumer protection agency or to bring suit in a public forum if the manufacturer does not make good on its warranty. Or she may threaten to enlist the aid of a television “on-the-side-of-the-consumer” program. Or a private club may threaten to post a list of the club members who have not yet paid their dues. We doubt that Congress intended § 875(d) to criminalize acts such as these.

Further, we cannot view the absence of an extortion definition in § 875, or the absence of the word “wrongful,” as particularly meaningful, for an overview of the Criminal Code reveals that, in enacting provisions dealing with extortion, Congress has simply been inconsistent as to the inclusion of such a word and as to the inclusion of an extortion definition. The inconsistency in format does not appear to bespeak different legislative intentions as to the meaning of extortion, for where a definition has been included, the concept of wrongfulness is made explicit; and in most sections where there is no definition and no use of adjectives such as “wrongful” or “unlawful,” such a concept seems nonetheless implicit. For example, in Chapter 42 of the Code, which encompasses 18 U.S.C. §§ 891-896 and is entitled “Extortionate Credit Transactions,” the use of any “extortionate means” to collect an extension of credit is forbidden, see, e.g., id. § 894(a), and “extortionate means” is defined: It encompasses “any means which involves the use, or an express or implicit threat of use, of violence or other criminal means to cause harm to the person, reputation, or property of any person,” id. § 891(7) (emphasis added). Section 875, on the other hand, is in Chapter 41 of the Code, which encompasses 18 U.S.C. §§ 871-880 and is entitled “Extortion and Threats.” In Chapter 41, the words “extort,” “extortion,” and “extortionate” are used in several sections, but all are undefined. Nonetheless, most of the acts prohibited in those sections must have been viewed as inherently wrongful. For example, §§ 875(a), (b), and (c) and the first three paragraphs of § 876 deal with extortionate threats to kidnap or to injure a person, conduct that plainly is inherently wrongful. In § 872, the conduct that is prohibited is simply the commission or attempted commission, by, inter alios, a federal employee, of “an act of extortion.” 18 U.S.C. § 872. Since § 872 contains no pertinent qualifying language, it seems plain that Congress views “extortion” as wrongful.

A similar juxtaposition of the presence and absence of definitions of extortion can be seen in the Hobbs Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1951, and the Travel Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1952. The Hobbs Act prohibits, inter alia, obstructing, delaying, or affecting commerce “by robbery or extortion,” id. § 1951(a), and it defines extortion as follows:

The term “extortion” means the obtaining of property from another, with his consent, induced by wrongful use of actual or threatened force, violence, or fear, or under color of official right,

id. § 1951(b)(2) (emphasis added). The Travel Act refers to “extortion” without *68defining it. That Act has nonetheless been interpreted as using the term in its “generic” sense, a sense that inherently signifies wrongfulness. Thus, in determining whether the term “extortion” as used in § 1952 was meant to encompass acts that at common law were classified as blackmail but not as extortion (because not committed by a public official), the Supreme Court accepted the

Government's] .. •. suggestion] that Congress intended that extortion should refer to those acts prohibited by state law which would be generically classified as extortionate, i.e., obtaining something of value from another with his consent induced by the wrongful use of force, fear, or threats.

United States v. Nardello, 393 U.S. 286, 290, 89 S.Ct. 534, 21 L.Ed.2d 487 (1969) (emphasis added).

In sum, in sections of the Criminal Code other than § 875(d), the words “extort,” “extortionate,” and “extortion” either are defined to have a wrongfulness component or implicitly contain such a component. If Congress had meant the word “extort” in § 875(d) to have a different connotation, we doubt that it would have chosen to convey that intention by means of silence. Given its silence and given the plain connotation of extortion in other sections, we decline to infer that “extort” as used in § 875(d) lacks a component of wrongfulness.

The legislative history of § 875(d) also supports our view that the phrase “intent to extort” was meant to reach only demands that are wrongful, for the predecessor to that section was enacted contemporaneously with the Anti-Racketeering Act of 1934, 18 U.S.C. § 420a-420e (1934) (“1934 Act”), which is the predecessor to the Hobbs Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1951. The Hobbs Act’s definition of extortion (“the obtaining of property from another, with his consent, induced by wrongful use of actual or threatened force, violence, or fear, or under color of official right”) dates back to the 1934 Act, which provided penalties for any person who

(b) Obtains property of another, with his consent, induced by wrongful use of force or fear, or under color of official right,

or who

(c) Commits or threatens to commit an act of physical violence or physical injury to a person or property in furtherance of a plan or purpose to violate subsection[ ] ... (b).

18 U.S.C. § 420a(b) and (c) (1934). Ah though the structure of the 1934 Act differs from that of Hobbs Act, the substance of their prohibitions is the same. Accord Bianchi v. United States, 219 F.2d 182, 188-89 (8th Cir.) (prohibition of extortion in the Hobbs Act is substantially the same as in the 1934 Act, both of which contain wrongfulness element), cert. denied, 349 U.S. 915, 75 S.Ct. 604, 99 L.Ed. 1249 (1955). And although the word “extortion” itself is not used in the 1934 Act, it is quite clear that Congress meant the statutory language to describe what it viewed as the essence of extortion, for the report of the Senate Judiciary Committee discussing the bill that would become the 1934 Act stated that the bill was aimed at “persons who commit acts of violence, intimidation and extortion.” S.Rep. No. 73-532, at 1 (1934); see id. (“The proposed statute ... makes it a felony to do any act ‘affecting’ or ‘burdening’ ... commerce if accompanied by extortion....”).

The 1945 debates on the bill that was eventually to become the Hobbs Act, see 91 Cong. Rec. 11,839-48, 11,899-922 (1945), showed both that the legislators believed that the 1934 Congress viewed extortion as having an element of wrongfulness, and that the Hobbs Act Congress—which retained the substance of the 1934 Act’s prohibition—held the same view. See id. at 11,901-02, 11,906, 11,908, 11,920. The discussion leading to the express use of the word “extortion” in the Hobbs Act, and of the definition of that term, centered on the generally accepted *69meaning of the term, which traditionally included a component of wrongfulness. The Hobbs Act proponents pointed out that the 1934 Act was fashioned in no small measure after the then-current definition of extortion used in the New York Penal Code. See, e.g., 91 Cong. Rec. 11,843, 11,900, 11,906; see also United States v. Zappola, 677 F.2d 264, 268 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 866, 103 S.Ct. 145, 74 L.Ed.2d 122 (1982); United States v. Nedley, 255 F.2d 350, 355 (3rd Cir.1958). That definition expressly included a “wrongfulness” element, see N.Y. Penal Law § 850 (Consol.1930) (extortion is the “obtaining of property from another ... with [his] consent, induced by a ivrongful use of force or fear, or under color of official right” (emphasis added)), and the Hobbs Act proponents viewed that definition as representative of the extortion laws of every state, see 91 Cong. Rec. at 11,906. Thus, the definition of extortion included in the Hobbs Act reflected what its proponents believed to be the generally accepted definition. See id. at 11,900, 11,906, 11,910, 11,914; see generally Black’s Laiv Dictionary 696 (4th ed.1957) (“extort”: “To gain by wrongful methods, to obtain in an unlawful manner, to compel payments by means of threats of injury to person, property, or reputation .... to exact something unlawfully by threats or putting in fear.”). Accordingly, Representative Hobbs stated that the terms extortion and robbery “have been construed a thousand times by the courts. Everybody knows what they mean.” 91 Cong. Rec. 11,912.

[WJhere Congress borrows terms of art in which are accumulated the legal tradition and meaning of centuries of practice, it presumably knows and adopts the cluster of ideas that were attached to each borrowed word in the body of learning from which it was taken and the meaning its use will convey to the judicial mind unless otherwise instructed. In such case, absence of contrary direction may be taken as satisfaction with widely accepted definitions, not as a departure from them.

Morissette v. United States, 342 U.S. 246, 263, 72 S.Ct. 240, 96 L.Ed. 288 (1952). In enacting the Hobbs Act, Congress made express what we would ordinarily presume with respect to the meaning of extortion.

At the same time that Congress was fashioning the 1934 Act to prohibit extortion it was considering the bill that would become 18 U.S.C. § 408d (1934), the predecessor of § 875. In terms virtually identical to those of § 875(d), the first numbered clause of § 408d prohibited

with intent to extort from any person ... any money or thing of value, [the] transmission] in interstate commerce by any means whatsoever, [of] any threat (1) to injure the person, property, or reputation of any person.

18 U.S.C. § 408d (1934). Although the passage of § 408d preceded the passage of the 1934 Act by a month, it is plain that the two statutes were considered by Congress contemporaneously. The Senate Report on the bill that would become the 1934 Act, emphasizing that that bill targeted “extortion,” S.Rep. No. 73-532, at 1 (1934), was issued in March 1934; the 1934 Act was passed in June, prohibiting what Congress viewed as extortionate conduct; and during the period between the issuance of the Report and the passage of the 1934 Act, Congress passed § 408d, prohibiting threats to injure reputation “with intent to extort.” The simultaneous consideration of the two enactments focusing on extortion gives rise to a strong inference that Congress intended to give the same meaning to extortion in both statutes.

Under the Hobbs Act definition of extortion, which includes obtaining property from another through a wrongful threat of force or fear, the use of a threat can be wrongful because it causes the victim to fear a harm that is itself wrongful, such as physical injury, or because the means is wrongful, such as violence. See, e.g., United States v. Zappola, 677 F.2d at 269. However, the Hobbs Act may also be violated by a threat that causes the victim to *70fear only an economic loss. See, e.g., United States v. Margiotta, 688 F.2d 108, 134 (2d Cir.1982), cert. denied, 461 U.S. 913, 103 S.Ct. 1891, 77 L.Ed.2d 282 (1983). Yet as we discussed in United States v. Clemente, 640 F.2d 1069, 1077 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 820, 102 S.Ct. 102, 70 L.Ed.2d 91 (1981), a threat to cause economic loss is not inherently wrongful; it becomes wrongful only when it is used to obtain property to which the threatener is not entitled.

In Clemente, we considered challenges to Hobbs Act convictions on the ground that the trial court’s instructions permitted the jury to “convict[ Clemente] solely upon finding that he used fear of economic loss to obtain money,” and that as a matter of law “the use of fear of economic loss is not inherently wrongful.” 640 F.2d at 1077. We rejected the challenge because Clem-ente’s factual premise was erroneous. The trial court had in fact informed the jury, inter alia, that “extortion” means obtaining property from another, with his consent, induced by the “wrongful” use of actual or threatened force or fear, id. at 1076 (internal quotation marks omitted), and had instructed that “[wjrongful” meant that the defendant in question had instilled in his victim the fear of economic loss of property to which the defendant “had no lawful right,” id. at 1077 (internal quotation marks omitted). In upholding the convictions, we stated as follows:

We are satisfied that the charge correctly instructed the jury on the wrongfulness element of the crime of extortion. The thrust of the district court’s charge when read as a- whole, see Cupp v. Naughten, 414 U.S. 141, 146-47, 94 S.Ct. 396, 38 L.Ed.2d 368 ... (1973), was that the use of fear of economic loss to obtain property to which one is not entitled is wrongful. It is obvious that the use of fear of financial injury is not inherently wrongful. And precisely because of this fact, the “objective” of the party employing fear of economic loss will have a bearing on the lawfulness of its use. In this regard, Judge Sand instructed the jury that the wrongfulness element of the crime would be satisfied upon finding that fear of economic loss was employed by the defendants to obtain money to which they were not lawfully entitled.

Id. at 1077 (emphasis added).

We are persuaded that a similar interpretation of § 875(d) is appropriate. Given Congress’s contemporaneous consideration of the predecessors of § 875(d) and the Hobbs Act, both of which focused on extortion, we infer that Congress’s concept of extortion was the same with respect to both statutes. The congressional discussions make clear that Congress meant to adopt the traditional concept of extortion, which includes an element of wrongfulness. And since, like threats of economic harm, not every threat to make a disclosure that would harm another person’s reputation is wrongful, we adopt an interpretation of § 875(d) similar to Clemente’s interpretation of the Hobbs Act. We conclude that not all threats to reputation are within the scope of § 875(d), that the objective of the party employing fear of economic loss or damage to reputation will have a bearing on the lawfulness of its use, and that it is material whether the defendant had a claim of right to the money demanded.

We do, however, view as inherently wrongful the type of threat to reputation that has no nexus to a claim of right. There are significant differences between, on the one hand, threatened disclosures of such matters as consumer complaints and nonpayment of dues, as to which the threatener has a plausible claim of right, and, on the other hand, threatened disclosures of such matters as sexual indiscretions that have no nexus with any plausible claim of right. In the former category of threats, the disclosures themselves—not only the threats—have the potential for causing payment of the money demanded; in the latter category, it is only the threat that has that potential, and actual disclosure would frustrate the prospect of pay*71ment. Thus, if the club posts a list of members with unpaid dues and its list is accurate, the dues generally will be paid; if the consumer lodges her complaint and is right, she is likely to receive her refund; and both matters are thereby concluded. In contrast, if a threatener having no claim of right discloses the victim’s secret, regardless of whether her information is correct she normally gets nothing from the target of her threats. And if the victim makes the demanded payment, thereby avoiding disclosure, there is nothing to prevent the threatener from repeatedly demanding money even after prior demands have been fully met.

Where there is no plausible claim of right and the only leverage to force the payment of money resides in the threat, where actual disclosure would be counterproductive, and where compliance with the threatener’s demands provides no assurance against additional demands based on renewed threats of disclosure, we regard a threat to reputation as inherently wrongful. We conclude that where a threat of harm to a person’s reputation seeks money or property to which the threatener does not have, and cannot reasonably believe she has, a claim of right, or where the threat has no nexus to a plausible claim of right, the threat is inherently wrongful and its transmission in interstate commerce is prohibited by § 875(d).

Within this framework, we conclude that the district court’s instruction to the jury on the meaning of “extort” as that term is used in § 875(d) was erroneous. The court instructed simply that “to extort means to obtain money or a thing of value from another by use of threats to reputation.” The court gave no other explanation of the term “extort” and did not limit the scope of that term to the obtaining of property to which the defendant had no actual, or reasonable belief of, entitlement. Rather, the court added that “it makes no difference whether the defendant was actually owed any money by” the victim of the threats. While it would have been correct to instruct that it makes no difference whether the defendant was actually owed money by the threat victim if the threat has no nexus to the defendant’s claim, the instruction as given lacked this essential component. Issues of whether a defendant has a plausible claim of right and whether there is a nexus between the threat and the defendant’s claim are questions of fact for the factfinder, and we conclude that the jury was not properly instructed as to the elements of a § 875(d) offense.

The evidence at trial was plainly sufficient to support verdicts of guilty had the jury been properly instructed. Even if Jackson were Cosby’s child, a rational jury could find that her demand, given her age (22) and the amount ($40 million), did not reflect a plausible claim for support. The evidence supported an inference that Jackson had no right to demand money from Cosby pursuant to a contract or promise and no right to insist that she be included in his will. The jury thus could have found that her threat to disclose was the only leverage she had to extract money from him; that if she sold her story to The Globe, she would lose that leverage; and that if Cosby had capitulated and paid her in order to prevent disclosure, there was no logical guarantee that there would not be a similar threat and demand in the future. Thus, had the jury been instructed that the “with intent to extort” element meant that defendants could be found guilty of violating § 875(d) only if Jackson’s threat to disclose was issued in connection with a claim for money to which she was not entitled or which had no nexus to a plausible claim of right, the jury could permissibly have returned verdicts of guilty on that count.

We conclude, however, that the court’s failure to inform the jury of the proper scope of the intent-to-extort element of § 875(d) erroneously allowed the jury to find defendants guilty of violating that section on the premise that any and every threat to reputation in order to obtain *72money is inherently wrongful. Accordingly, Jackson and Medina are entitled to a new trial on the § 875(d) count.

B. The Conspiracy and Travel Act Counts

We conclude that defendants’ convictions of conspiracy and Travel Act violations must also be set aside. In its instructions on the conspiracy count, the district court made clear that a defendant could not be found guilty on that count unless he or she was aware of the unlawful nature of the agreement. Thus, it informed the jury, inter alia, that in order to convict a given defendant on that count, it must find that that defendant entered into the alleged conspiracy with criminal intent, i.e., with “aware[ness] of the generally unlawful nature of his or her acts” (Tr. 1769), i.e., that the defendants acted “with an understanding of the unlawful character of the conspiracy, intentionally engaged, advised, or assisted in it for the purpose of furthering one or both of its unlawful objects” (Tr. 1771). However, in elaborating on the allegedly unlawful acts and objects of the conspiracy, the court stated:

The indictment charges two distinct unlawful objects or goals. Thé first charges that it was an object of the conspiracy that the defendants, with the intent to extort money and things of value from Bill Cosby, would and did transmit in interstate commerce communications containing threats to injure the reputation of Bill Cosby, in violation of Section 875(d) and, as I have told you, in addition the indictment alleges a second object of this conspiracy, to violate Section 1952(a)(3) of Title 18 of the United States Code, which makes it unlawful to cross state lines or use interstate facilities to facilitate extortion.

... [I]t is not necessary for the government to prove the success of the conspiracy. It is also not necessary for you to find that the conspiracy embodied both of these unlawful objectives. It is sufficient if you find beyond a reasonable doubt the conspirators agreed, implicitly or impliedly [sic ], on either of these two objectives. When a conspiracy has more than one objective, the government need prove only that the defendant you are considering agreed to accomplish at least one of the criminal objectives.

(Tr. 1767-68.) Thus, the instruction on conspiracy incorporated the error in the court’s instruction on § 875(d), thereby erroneously allowing the jury to find defendants guilty of a conspiracy to engage in conduct that, under the court’s definition, could have been lawful. Defendants are entitled to a new trial on the conspiracy count with the jury properly instructed as to the nature of the conduct prohibited by § 875(d).

The court’s instructions on the Travel Act count likewise incorporated the erroneous instruction on the § 875(d) count. As to the objectives of the interstate travel, the court stated as follows:

The indictment alleges that the defendant traveled or caused someone else to travel interstate and used or caused someone else to use interstate facilities to facilitate two forms of unlawful activity, extortion in violation of 875(d), and extortion in violation of Section 155 of the New York Penal Law. The government must prove to you beyond a reasonable doubt that the activities the defendant intended to facilitate were in fact unlawful under either federal law or New York State law.

It is sufficient if you find beyond a reasonable doubt that the conduct was unlawful under either of these statutes. Of course, to conclude that the government has met its burden of proof in this case, you must unanimously agree on whichever statute you may find that the conduct violated.

I have already instructed you on elements of extortion under the federal law under 875(d) in connection with my *73charge to you on Count 2. Those instructions apply here as well.

(Tr. 1785-86.) Accordingly, defendants are entitled to a new trial on the Travel Act count as well.

C. Other Contentions

Medina and Sabas advance additional contentions that we discuss briefly in light of our order for a remand.

1. Admission of the Medinar-Thomp-son Conversation Excerpt

Medina contends that the district court erred in refusing to allow him to introduce parts of the tape of his January 16, 1997 conversation with Thompson. The conversation was roughly 42 minutes long; the government offered in evidence only a 90-second portion of the tape near the beginning of the conversation, in which Thompson warned that the scheme in which Jackson was engaged constituted the federal crime of extortion. The excerpt was admitted as evidence of Medina’s awareness of the unlawfulness of the extortion scheme. The court denied Medina’s request that the remainder of the tape be admitted pursuant to the “rule of completeness.” We see no error in that denial.

Rule 106 of the Federal Rules of Evidence provides that

[w]hen a writing or recorded statement or part thereof is introduced by a party, an adverse party may require the introduction at that time of any other part or any other writing or recorded statement which ought in fairness to be considered contemporaneously with it.

Fed.R.Evid. 106. Under this principle, an “omitted portion of a statement must be placed in evidence if necessary to explain the admitted portion, to place the admitted portion in context, to avoid misleading the jury, or to ensure fair and impartial understanding of the admitted portion.” United States v. Castro, 813 F.2d 571, 575-76 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 844, 108 S.Ct. 137, 98 L.Ed.2d 94 (1987); see, e.g., Beech Aircraft Corp. v. Rainey, 488 U.S. 153, 172-73, 109 S.Ct. 439, 102 L.Ed.2d 445 (1988); Phoenix Associates III v. Stone, 60 F.3d 95, 102 (2d Cir.1995). The completeness doctrine does not, however, require the admission of portions of a statement that are neither explanatory of nor relevant to the admitted passages. See United States v. Marin, 669 F.2d 73, 84 (2d Cir.1982). The trial court’s application of the rule of completeness is reviewed only for abuse of discretion. See, e.g., United States v. Castro, 813 F.2d at 576.

Medina argues that a jury hearing the tone and substance of Thompson’s statements in later portions of the conversation would perceive Thompson to be exaggerating, overly emotional, or “out of control,” and would conclude that Medina had reason to discount her warning that Jackson’s conduct was unlawful. The trial court, after listening to the tape, saw little probative value in the parts of the tape proffered by Medina, noting, inter alia, that the substance of Thompson’s remarks in the remainder of the conversation was neither incredible nor bizarre, and that Thompson’s “tone was pretty calm and reasoned.” (Tr. 1342-43.) The court also noted that the portions of the tape proffered by Medina consisted largely of Medina’s own self-serving statements, which, as offered by him, are inadmissible hearsay. We see no abuse of discretion in the exclusion of the tape.

2. Sabas’s Sufficiency Challenges

Focusing principally on the conspiracy count, Sabas contends that he is entitled to reversal on the ground that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction. If this contention had merit, Sabas would be entitled to dismissal of the conspiracy count, rather than being retried on that count. See, e.g., Burks v. United States, 437 U.S. 1, 18, 98 S.Ct. 2141, 57 L.Ed.2d 1 (1978). We conclude that his contention is without merit.

*74In challenging the sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction, a defendant bears a heavy burden, for the reviewing court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, drawing all inferences in the government’s favor and deferring to the jury’s assessments of the witnesses’ credibility. See, e.g., United States v. Allah, 130 F.3d 33, 45 (2d Cir.1997), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 118 S.Ct. 2347, 141 L.Ed.2d 718 (1998); United States v. Giraldo, 80 F.3d 667, 673 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 847, 117 S.Ct. 135, 136 L.Ed.2d 83 (1996). We must affirm the conviction so long as any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. See, e.g., Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); United States v. Amato, 15 F.3d 230, 235 (2d Cir.1994).

In order to prove a conspiracy, the government must present evidence from which it can reasonably be inferred that the person charged with conspiracy knew of the existence of the scheme and knowingly joined and participated in it. See, e.g., United States v. Giraldo, 80 F.3d at 673; United States v. Sanchez Solis, 882 F.2d 693, 696 (2d Cir.1989). Mere presence at the scene or association with conspirators does not constitute participation in the conspiracy, even if the defendant has knowledge of the conspiracy. See, e.g., United States v. Jones, 30 F.3d 276, 282 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1028, 115 S.Ct. 602, 130 L.Ed.2d 513 (1994); United States v. Scarpa, 913 F.2d 993, 1005 (2d Cir.1990); United States v. Torres, 901 F.2d 205, 220 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 906, 111 S.Ct. 273, 112 L.Ed.2d 229 (1990). However, “[o]nce a conspiracy is shown to exist, the evidence sufficient to link another defendant to it need not be overwhelming.” United States v. Amato, 15 F.3d at 235 (internal quotation marks omitted); see, e.g., United States v. Rivera, 971 F.2d 876, 891 (2d Cir.1992); United States v. Scarpa, 913 F.2d at 1005. The elements of conspiracy, like the elements of substantive offenses, may be established through circumstantial evidence. See, e.g., United States v. Amato, 15 F.3d at 235; United States v. Rivera, 971 F.2d at 890.

The evidence in the present case was sufficient under these standards. First, there was ample evidence that Sabas was present for many of the key conspiratorial conversations, which could have left no doubt in his mind as to the nature of the discussions. For example, Macaraeg 'testified that Sabas was present at the discussions during the week of January 6, in which Jackson and Medina discussed ways to threaten Cosby’s reputation and pressure sponsors in order to force Cosby to give Jackson money; Sabas was present when Medina and Jackson were formulating a draft press release designed to increase that pressure; Sabas was present when Medina announced that Cosby would “have to pay a lot of money” if he did not want Jackson’s story to come out; and Sabas was present on January 16 when Jackson spoke with Schmitt by telephone and stated that she would sell her story to a tabloid unless she received $40 million.

Second, there was evidence that Sabas acted to further the objectives of the conspiracy. After the January 17 negotiations between Jackson and Schmitt culminated in an agreed figure of $24 million, which Jackson and Medina were to collect in New York, Sabas drove Jackson and Medina to the airport. At Medina’s instruction, Sabas provided Williams with a place to stay that night. In addition, Sa-bas allowed the use of his credit card for the purchase of return tickets for Jackson and Medina.

Finally, while Jackson and Medina were in New York, Sabas had possession of several documents and tapes that were integral to the scheme, including the source agreement with The Globe, the letters faxed to Lund and Schmitt in which Jackson threatened to take her story to the media, and a tape of the conversation in which Jackson demanded $40 million. Sabas concealed some of these materials in *75his parents’ house rather than his own. When asked for these items by FBI agents after Jackson and Medina were arrested, he sought to conceal them. He first responded that they were at the house of a Mend, whom he refused to identify; he told the agents he would lead them to the Mend’s house, but he then engaged in evasive driving, and the agents lost track of him. The agents were unable to find Sabas at his home again for two days. When they did find him and served him with a subpoena, he gave them only some of the materials they requested, stating that he was giving them everything. It was only after a third visit by the agents, along with a threatened charge of obstruction of justice, that Sabas took the agents to his parents’ home and produced all of the remaining evidence.

In sum, the evidence as to Sabas’s awareness and involvement was sufficient to permit a rational juror to find beyond a reasonable doubt that Sabas knew of the conspiracy, intended to join it, and did participate in it.

To the extent that Sabas also contends that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction of interstate travel to promote extortion, that contention too lacks merit. The evidence that Sabas, with knowledge of the scheme, drove Jackson and Medina to the airport for their trip from California to New York and provided them with tickets for their intended return, was ample to permit his conviction of a Travel Act violation on an aiding and abetting theory. See, e.g., United States v. Gordon, 987 F.2d 902, 907 (2d Cir.1993) (“[a] defendant may be found guilty of a substantive crime on an aiding and abetting theory if he joined the criminal venture, shared in it, and contributed to its success”).

3. Severance

Sabas also contends that he should have been tried separately from Jackson and Medina because the evidence was so much stronger against them than against him and because his defense was “diametrically opposite from [theirs].” (Sabas brief on appeal at 9). We conclude that his motions for severance were properly denied.

In the federal system, multiple defendants may be charged in the same indictment “if they are alleged to have participated in the same act or transaction or in the same series of acts or transactions,” Fed.R.Crim.P. 8(b), and there is a clear preference that defendants who are indicted together be tried jointly, see, e.g., Zafiro v. United States, 506 U.S. 534, 537, 113 S.Ct. 933, 122 L.Ed.2d 317 (1993); United States v. Miller, 116 F.3d 641, 679 (2d Cir.1997), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 118 S.Ct. 2063, 141 L.Ed.2d 140 (1998). If defendants have been properly joined under Rule 8(b), a severance motion should be granted “only if there is a serious risk that a joint trial would compromise a specific trial right of one of the defendants, or prevent the jury from making a reliable judgment about guilt or innocence.” Zafiro v. United States, 506 U.S. at 539, 113 S.Ct. 933; see, e.g., United States v. Aulicino, 44 F.3d 1102, 1116 (2d Cir.1995).

The denial of a motion for severance will not be overturned absent an abuse of discretion of the district court, see, e.g., United States v. Rosa, 11 F.3d 315, 341 (2d Cir.1993), cert. denied, 511 U.S. 1042, 114 S.Ct. 1565, 128 L.Ed.2d 211 (1994); United States v. Benitez, 920 F.2d 1080, 1085 (2d Cir.1990), resulting in prejudice so severe that the defendant’s conviction constituted “a miscarriage of justice,” United States v. Aulicino, 44 F.3d at 1117; United States v. Rosa, 11 F.3d at 341. A jury’s acquittal of a defendant on one or more counts is persuasive evidence that joinder did not result in prejudice. See, e.g., United States v. Aulicino, 44 F.3d at 1117.

We see no abuse of discretion or unfair prejudice in requiring that Sabas, Jackson, and Medina be tried together. First, we see no inconsistency in the defendants’ *76respective defenses. Sabas’s defense was that he lacked knowledge of any conspiracy; the defense of Jackson and Medina was that they lacked the necessary criminal intent because they believed they had certain legal rights to money from Cosby. The two stances are not necessarily inconsistent. Second, since Sabas is charged with participating in a conspiracy with Jackson and Medina, nearly all of the evidence admitted at a trial of Jackson and Medina would also be admissible in a separate trial of Sabas. Third, as discussed above, there is ample evidence to support Sabas’s convictions of conspiracy to commit extortion and of aiding and abetting violation of the Travel Act. Finally, we have little doubt that a jury is capable of discerningly assessing the weight of the evidence in order' to differentiate among these three defendants. The original jury did precisely that, finding Jackson and Medina guilty on the § 875(d) count while acquitting Sabas on that count.

Accordingly, on remand, all three defendants may be retried together.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, we vacate the convictions and remand for a new trial.