Under 18 U.S.C. 373, solicitation is a federal felony committed the moment a person tries to persuade, command, or induce someone else to commit a violent federal crime. The other person does not have to agree, act, or even take the request seriously. The maximum prison sentence is half the maximum for the crime that was solicited, or up to 20 years if that crime carries life imprisonment or the death penalty.
What the Government Has to Prove
A conviction under Section 373 rests on three elements. The defendant intended for another person to commit a specific federal felony involving the use or threat of physical force against a person or property. The circumstances strongly corroborate that intent. And the defendant actually tried to persuade, command, or induce the other person to carry it out.1Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 18 USC 373 – Solicitation to Commit a Crime of Violence
The violence requirement is doing real work here. Federal law defines a “crime of violence” as an offense that has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against a person or property.2Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 18 US Code 16 – Crime of Violence Defined That covers solicitation of murder, kidnapping, arson, armed robbery, and certain terrorism offenses. It does not cover soliciting nonviolent federal crimes like fraud or tax evasion, which are prosecuted under other statutes.
The Corroboration Requirement
Section 373 has an evidentiary threshold built into its text: words alone are not enough. The statute requires “circumstances strongly corroborative” of the defendant’s intent.1Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 18 USC 373 – Solicitation to Commit a Crime of Violence The government must point to something beyond the request itself that shows the defendant meant it.
What courts look for varies. Planning steps. Offers of payment. Weapons or supplies acquired. Targets scouted. Repeated recruitment attempts. In United States v. Doggart, the defendant recruited accomplices, discussed weapons and tactics for attacking a mosque, and traveled toward the target; a jury convicted him and the court sentenced him to 235 months.3United States Department of Justice. United States v Doggart Supplemental Brief In United States v. Hale, a jury convicted the defendant of soliciting the murder of a federal judge.4Justia Law. United States of America v Matthew Hale
The corroboration standard also serves a constitutional function. Without it, angry words or dark fantasies could support a conviction. The statute forces prosecutors to show the defendant was serious.
Intent
Section 373 requires specific intent. The government must prove the defendant genuinely wanted the other person to commit the violent felony in question. Vague anger, hypothetical musings, or general endorsements of violence do not meet the standard unless surrounding conduct shows a real effort to get someone to act.
Courts weigh the full picture: words, tone, audience, and what the defendant did afterward. A frustrated one-off remark reads differently than a detailed conversation where the defendant names a target, offers money, and follows up. Providing weapons, sharing a target’s schedule, or wiring funds sharpens the case on intent considerably. The person being solicited need not agree, take any action, or even be capable of committing the crime.
Penalties
The sentence for solicitation tracks the underlying crime. Half the maximum. If the solicited crime carries 10 years, solicitation carries up to 5. If it carries 20, solicitation carries up to 10. For crimes punishable by life or death, the cap is 20 years.1Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 18 USC 373 – Solicitation to Commit a Crime of Violence
Fines follow the same sliding scale, capped at half the maximum fine for the underlying crime, and the statute expressly overrides the general federal fine schedule in 18 U.S.C. 3571.1Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 18 USC 373 – Solicitation to Commit a Crime of Violence The fine ceiling depends entirely on what crime was solicited.
A conviction brings collateral consequences past the prison term. Loss of firearm rights. Potential deportation for non-citizens. A permanent federal felony record affecting employment and housing. Courts also impose supervised release after prison.
How Sentencing Guidelines Apply
Federal judges calculate a recommended range using the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines. Solicitation to commit murder starts at a base offense level of 33, with a four-level increase if payment was offered or received. For solicitation of other violent crimes without a specific guideline, Section 2X1.1 governs; it generally starts from the base level for the underlying crime and may reduce it by three levels.5United States Sentencing Commission. Guidelines Manual Chapter Two – Offense Conduct Terrorism enhancements, applied in Doggart, can push the final sentence sharply higher.
Statute of Limitations
The default federal limitations period for non-capital offenses is five years from the date the crime was committed.6Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 18 US Code 3282 – Offenses Not Capital The clock runs from the solicitation, not from when investigators discover it. If the solicited crime is an act of terrorism, separate statutes may extend the period.
Defenses
Renunciation
The statute includes a built-in affirmative defense. A defendant who voluntarily and completely abandoned the criminal intent and actually prevented the solicited crime from happening can raise renunciation. The defendant carries the burden by a preponderance of the evidence.7Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 18 US Code 373 – Solicitation to Commit a Crime of Violence
The abandonment must be genuine. Postponing the crime for a better opportunity does not qualify. Switching to a different target does not qualify. Backing off because of fear of arrest is not “voluntary.” Only a real change of heart, paired with affirmative steps that stop the crime, will do.
Entrapment
Solicitation charges often grow out of undercover operations, and entrapment is a common response. Under Jacobson v. United States, the government cannot convict someone it induced to commit a crime they were not already predisposed to commit.8Justia U.S. Supreme Court Center. Jacobson v United States, 503 US 540 When agents initiated contact, built the relationship, and gradually steered the defendant toward incriminating statements, the defense can argue the government manufactured the crime. The jury asks whether the defendant was an “unwary innocent” or an “unwary criminal” who seized the opportunity.
What Is Not a Defense
The statute forecloses one argument that might seem obvious. It is not a defense that the person solicited could not have committed the crime, whether for lack of mental state, legal incompetence, or immunity from prosecution.1Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 18 USC 373 – Solicitation to Commit a Crime of Violence That matters because many Section 373 cases involve undercover officers or informants who never intended to carry out anything. The defendant cannot escape liability by pointing out that the “recruit” was a federal agent.
How Solicitation Differs from Attempt, Conspiracy, and Aiding and Abetting
Federal attempt requires a “substantial step” toward completing the underlying crime. Solicitation draws the line earlier: the offense is complete the moment the defendant tries to persuade another person, whether or not anything else happens.
Conspiracy under 18 U.S.C. 371 requires an agreement between two or more people plus at least one overt act in furtherance of that agreement.9Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 18 USC 371 – Conspiracy to Commit Offense or to Defraud United States Solicitation is one-sided. The recruit does not need to agree or respond. When the recruit refuses or turns out to be an undercover agent, solicitation is often the only viable charge.
Aiding and abetting under 18 U.S.C. 2 punishes a person who aids, abets, counsels, or induces the commission of a federal crime as if they had committed it themselves.10Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 18 US Code 2 – Principals But aiding and abetting requires the underlying crime to actually happen or be attempted. Solicitation does not. If someone hires another person to commit arson and it is carried out, they face aiding and abetting for the arson at full penalties. If it never happens, they face solicitation, capped at half the arson maximum.
Where the First Amendment Comes In
Solicitation charges brush up against free speech. The First Amendment protects inflammatory political speech, including calls for revolution and abstract endorsement of violence. Under Brandenburg v. Ohio, the government cannot punish advocacy of illegal action unless it is directed at producing imminent lawless action and is likely to do so.11Library of Congress. Brandenburg v Ohio, 395 US 444
Section 373 operates in a different category. A serious, specific request that another person commit a violent felony is not political advocacy. Courts treat that conduct as outside First Amendment protection, alongside offers to engage in illegal transactions and true threats. Congress designed the statute to reach real efforts to hire or recruit for violence, not unpopular opinions. The corroboration requirement helps courts draw the line: angry posts without concrete steps sit on one side; contacting a specific person, naming a target, and discussing logistics sit on the other.
Pretrial Detention
Because Section 373 is by definition a crime of violence, it triggers special pretrial detention provisions. The government can request a detention hearing, and the court must decide whether any set of bail conditions can reasonably assure community safety and the defendant’s appearance.12Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 18 US Code 3142 – Release or Detention of a Defendant Pending Trial
Judges weigh the nature of the offense, the strength of the evidence, community ties, criminal history, and danger to others. For someone charged with soliciting murder or a terrorist attack, release is hard to obtain. The nature of the charge itself suggests ongoing danger, and evidence of intent to cause serious harm cuts against release. Defendants with strong ties, no record, and weaker evidence have a better shot, but detention is the more common outcome in serious Section 373 cases.