Murder for Hire – 18 U.S.C. § 1958 Sentencing Guidelines

Thanks for visiting Spodek Law Group – a second-generation firm managed by Todd Spodek, with over 40 years of combined experience defending clients against federal charges that terrify most lawyers. When prosecutors charge murder-for-hire under 18 U.S.C. § 1958, they’re alleging you commodified human life: treating killing as a commercial transaction. Whether you hired someone to commit murder or accepted payment to kill, the federal government views this as cold-blooded, calculated conduct deserving decades in prison—or life.

Murder-for-hire prosecutions often involve undercover operations, cooperating witnesses wearing wires, and staged scenarios where the “victim” was never in danger. Yet defendants face the same penalties as if they’d completed the murder. This article explains how § 1958 sentencing works, why the law punishes incomplete crimes so harshly, and how defense strategies challenge the interstate commerce element that gives federal courts jurisdiction over what should be state murder cases.

The Statute: Turning Murder Into a Business Transaction

Section 1958 criminalizes using interstate commerce facilities—phones, internet, mail, travel across state lines—with intent that murder be committed for pecuniary compensation. Three elements: interstate commerce use, intent that murder occur, and money or other payment involved. Both the person hiring (the “contractor”) and the person accepting the job (the “hit man”) violate the statute. Prosecutors charge both under the theory that the contractor causes the hired killer to use interstate facilities.

The interstate commerce requirement isn’t difficult to prove. Making a phone call across state lines? That’s interstate commerce. Using email, text messages, or social media to discuss the murder? Interstate commerce. Traveling from one state to another to meet? Interstate commerce. Federal courts have interpreted this element broadly, giving federal prosecutors jurisdiction over murders that have minimal connection to interstate activity. A phone call from Manhattan to Brooklyn technically crosses state lines if it routes through New Jersey cell towers. That’s enough.

Penalties scale with outcomes. If you use interstate commerce to arrange murder-for-hire but no one gets hurt: 10 years maximum. If someone suffers personal injury during the attempt: 20 years. If someone dies: mandatory minimum of life imprisonment or death. The statute treats completed murders identically to first-degree murder—but here’s what matters for most cases: even when no murder occurs, no one is harmed, and the entire operation was an FBI sting with no real victim, defendants still face substantial prison time.

Most Cases? Undercover Operations

Walk through typical § 1958 prosecutions. Someone angry at an ex-spouse, business partner, or romantic rival discusses wanting them dead. Maybe they mention it to a friend, a coworker, someone they trust. That person—unbeknownst to them—is cooperating with law enforcement, wears a wire, and introduces them to a “professional” who does this kind of work. The “professional” is an undercover agent. Meetings follow. The defendant discusses the target, method, timeline. They offer payment—sometimes tens of thousands, sometimes much less. They provide photos, addresses, the victim’s schedule. The agent asks clarifying questions: are you sure about this, when do you want it done, how should I make it look. The defendant answers. Arrests happen shortly after money changes hands or the defendant says “go ahead.”

Then reality: there was never a hit man, the victim was never in danger, and the person they trusted was working for the FBI.

Federal Sentencing Guidelines: Offense Level 32

Under §2E1.4 of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, murder-for-hire receives a base offense level of 32—or higher if the underlying conduct would produce a higher level. At Category I (minimal criminal history), offense level 32 yields 121-151 months. That’s 10 to 12.5 years for a crime where no one died and often no one was ever in real danger.

With acceptance of responsibility (−3 levels to offense level 29), sentences drop to 87-108 months—roughly 7-9 years. Still substantial. Compare this to voluntary manslaughter’s offense level 29 baseline: the guidelines treat hiring someone to commit murder (incomplete crime, no victim) similarly to killing someone in heat of passion (completed homicide). Why? Because Congress and the Sentencing Commission view the act of hiring killers as inherently dangerous, indicating the defendant would have followed through if given genuine opportunity.

The guideline contains a critical instruction: “the greater of 32 or the offense level applicable to the underlying unlawful conduct.” If the planned murder would have been first-degree (level 43), but it never happened, you don’t get level 43—you get 32. But if the planned crime was terrorism, murder of a federal official, or another offense with higher guidelines, those apply instead. The guideline sets a floor, not a ceiling.

When Death Results: Mandatory Life

If someone actually dies as a result of the murder-for-hire scheme, statutory penalties become mandatory life imprisonment or death. The guidelines cross-reference to §2A1.1 (First Degree Murder), which is offense level 43. At that point, this isn’t about sentencing ranges or criminal history categories—it’s about life or execution, with no intermediate options.

Most § 1958 prosecutions don’t reach this stage because FBI operations arrest defendants before any actual violence occurs. But in rare cases where the hired killer wasn’t an agent, or where the scheme progressed before law enforcement intervened, defendants face the same penalties as if they’d committed the murder personally. The law doesn’t distinguish between the person who plans and pays versus the person who executes—both are equally culpable when someone dies.

Defense Challenges: Entrapment and Lack of Predisposition

Entrapment becomes the primary defense in undercover murder-for-hire prosecutions. The question isn’t whether the defendant agreed to hire a killer—recordings and testimony usually prove that beyond doubt. The question is whether they would have done so without government agents creating the opportunity and inducement.

Entrapment requires two showings. First, government agents induced the crime—not just provided opportunity, but actively encouraged, persuaded, or pressured the defendant into conduct they wouldn’t have pursued independently. Second, the defendant lacked predisposition to commit murder-for-hire before government involvement.

Evidence of inducement: Did the informant or agent repeatedly raise the idea of murder despite the defendant’s initial resistance? Did they minimize the seriousness, suggest it was routine, or offer to handle all details? Did they provide means (introducing the “hit man”) the defendant couldn’t have found alone? If yes, that’s inducement. But prosecutors will argue they merely facilitated what the defendant already wanted—and if the defendant brought up murder first or quickly agreed without hesitation, inducement becomes harder to prove.

Predisposition evidence cuts both ways. Prosecutors show the defendant discussed murder before meeting agents, had motive (financial gain, custody disputes, romantic jealousy), or demonstrated intent through actions like providing detailed planning information. Defense presents lack of violence history, evidence the defendant was venting rather than planning, mental health or substance abuse issues affecting judgment, or the defendant’s shock and immediate backtracking when confronted with the reality of what they’d agreed to.

Entrapment rarely succeeds—federal courts apply it narrowly. But in cases where agents drove the conspiracy forward despite defendant hesitation, where inducement was aggressive, and where the defendant has zero history of violence, it remains viable. The alternative is accepting that angry conversations and hypothetical discussions become decade-long prison sentences the moment an undercover agent enters the picture.

The Interstate Commerce Element: Constitutional Overreach

Section 1958 federalizes what should be state murder prosecutions by requiring minimal interstate commerce involvement. The Supreme Court has blessed expansive readings of the Commerce Clause for decades, but that doesn’t eliminate concerns about federal overreach into traditional state criminal jurisdiction.

Consider: two people in the same city discuss murder. One hires the other. They meet locally, plan locally, and the intended victim lives locally. If they used a cell phone that pinged a tower across state lines, or sent a text message that routed through out-of-state servers, federal jurisdiction attaches. The interstate commerce element becomes a technicality that transforms state murder-for-hire into a federal offense carrying life imprisonment.

Defense challenges to federal jurisdiction rarely succeed, but they’re worth asserting. Did interstate commerce use truly occur, or are prosecutors inferring it from standard modern communication? Was the interstate element substantial enough to justify federal prosecution, or should this case remain in state court where penalties might be less severe? These arguments preserve appellate issues and occasionally persuade judges to dismiss charges or transfer to state authorities.

When No One Actually Dies

Suppose your client is convicted of § 1958 violations where no one died and the operation was entirely FBI-controlled. How do you argue for below-guideline sentences? Emphasize impossibility. The crime could never have succeeded because no real hit man existed. While legally irrelevant to guilt, it matters for § 3553(a) sentencing purposes: the need for punishment to reflect the seriousness of the offense and promote respect for law. When danger was illusory, severity should reflect that reality. Present compelling mitigation. What drove the defendant to this desperate choice? Financial ruin? Custody battles? Abusive relationships? Mental health crises? Substance abuse? These don’t excuse hiring a killer, but they contextualize the conduct as aberrational rather than characteristic. First-time offenders with stable histories who made a catastrophic error under extraordinary pressure deserve consideration different from professional criminals who routinely engage in violent conduct. Demonstrate genuine remorse. Did the defendant immediately express horror upon arrest when confronted with what they’d done? Have they accepted responsibility, shown understanding of the gravity, and committed to therapy or treatment addressing underlying issues? Judges sentencing someone to 7-12 years care whether that person has internalized lessons or will reoffend. Evidence of transformation matters.

Todd Spodek built this firm defending clients in cases where prosecutors, media, and public opinion aligned against them before trial began. Murder-for-hire prosecutions fit that pattern: the charge sounds monstrous, undercover recordings seem damning, and juries hear defendants discussing killing in cold, calculated terms. But context matters. We’ve handled cases where government inducement crossed constitutional lines, where defendants were entrapped rather than caught, and where prosecutors charged § 1958 violations despite evidence the defendant never genuinely intended violence. Our representation of Anna Delvey—whose Netflix series documented how media convicted her before trial—taught us that defending universally condemned clients requires more than competent lawyering. It demands willingness to challenge government narratives, expose prosecutorial overreach, and present evidence that humanizes people accused of inhuman acts.

If you’re under investigation for or charged with federal murder-for-hire, contact us immediately. These cases move quickly. We’re available 24/7.