Cain is Able

United States v. Cain, 09-0707-cr (2d Cir. January 31, 2012) (Newman, Lynch, CJJ, Restani, JCIT)

This is a case, oddly enough, about trees. Appellant David Cain, Jr., proprietor of David’s Tree Service, assisted by his brother, Chris Cain, a cousin, Jamie Soha, and others, was trying to corner the tree service and logging market in northwestern New York State. To get there, they engaged in acts of violence, extortion and even arson, and were convicted of substantive and conspiracy RICO counts and of other, related crimes.

All convictions were affirmed except for Chris Cain’s on the RICO counts. The circuit found that the district court’s “pattern” instruction was erroneous and, as to Chris Cain, the error, although not flagged below, was plain.

The RICO statute requires proof of a “pattern of racketeering activity” - at least two acts, the last of which occurred within ten years after the commission of the one before it. But the Supreme Court requires more than just temporal proof - the prosecution must prove that the racketeering acts are “interrelated” and that there is “continuity or a threat of continuity.” The Second Circuit has distilled this rule into two distinct parts: “horizontal relatedness” means that the acts must be shown to be related to one another; “vertical relatedness” means that the acts must be shown to have a nexus to the enterprise (this concept includes “continuity”). Here, the district court charged only the statutory language with respect to timing. This was error, both as to the substantive RICO count and the RICO conspiracy count, since the conspiracy statute includes the pattern requirement.

Turning to plain error review, the circuit easily concluded that there was (1) an “error” that was (2) “plain,” that is, “obvious,” since the circuit’s rule on relatedness and continuity had been “well established” by a “substantial body of case law” long before this trial took place.

The third prong - whether the error affected a defendant’s “substantial rights” - was a “closer question.” To meet this test, the error must be “prejudicial, which means that there must be a reasonable probability that the error affected the outcome of the trial.” For David Cain and Soha, there was “no such possibility. The jury independently convicted them of several counts of extortion that were also RICO predicates, and those verdicts “overwhelmingly demonstrated that the same objective motivated each act of extortion” - to increase David Cain’s market share and “enrich [his] associates.” The extortions were also clearly not aimed uniquely at the victims; their purpose was to secure David Cain’s dominance in the tree service business in the area, a goal that plainly posed a threat of future acts, as needed, to eliminate other competitors or new entrants into the market.

For Chris Cain, however, the court reached a different result. He was not charged in the three extortions that made up the core of the RICO case against his brother, and the evidence connecting Chris Cain’s unlawful activities to the criminal enterprise was “remarkably thin.” The only RICO predicate that both Chris and David were convicted of was a 1994 vehicle arson, which the government had conceded on appeal was insufficiently proven. And the remaining racketeering acts that the jury found to have been proven as to Chris were “not so clearly linked to each other or to the enterprise itself” that a rational jury, properly instructed, could necessarily have found that they constituted a pattern of racketeering activity.

Those acts were: a marijuana distribution conspiracy , the arson of a residence, a different arson and insurance fraud in connection with a rental property owned by Cain’s parents and a home invasion robbery. But none of those offenses involved David Cain, his tree service business or the other participants in the racketeering acts, and there was no “apparent connection” among the crimes themselves.

Finally, prong four, the court held that the erroneous instruction “seriously affect[ed] the fairness, integrity [and] public reputation of judicial proceedings” pertaining to Chris Cain, such that the circuit was warranted in exercising its discretion to correct it.

Racket Club

United States v. Applins, No. 07-2193-cr (2d Cir. March 1, 2011) (Miner, Sack, Hall, CJJ)

This decision closes a hole in the Second Circuit’s RICO jurisprudence. The appellants, drug dealers who were members of something called the Elk Block gang, were convicted of RICO conspiracy under 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d) in the Northern District of New York. The trial judge gave confusing jury instructions as to whether, for RICO conspiracy, the existence of an enterprise was an element of the offense.

The defendants pursued this issue on appeal, and the circuit affirmed, holding that “the establishment of an enterprise is not an element of the RICO conspiracy offense.” In a footnote, the court brushed aside its past decisions that seemed to suggest otherwise, deeming the relevant language “dicta.”

The Heavy Burdens

United States v. Burden, No. 03-1727-cr (2d Cir. March 31, 2010) (Hall, Livingston, Gibson, CJJ)

From 1997 to 2001, Kelvin Burden, ran a crack cocaine ring in Norwalk, Connecticut, with the help of several of his brothers, two of whom were named David, and a few of his friends. The gang’s activities grew increasingly violent. Throughout 1998 and 1999 there were fatal encounters with members of a rival gang, the Hill Crew; also, in 1999, Burden gang members shot at two of their own, killing one and leaving the other a paraplegic.

The defendants were convicted of racketeering, drug charges and multiple VCAR counts, and received sentences ranging from eighty-eight months to life.

Their principal arguments on appeal were that the evidence was insufficient to establish that the Burden gang was an “enterprise” and that its activities constituted a “pattern.” The circuit affirmed.

First, the defendants asserted that the evidence showed only that the Burdens and their friends sold drugs, but not that the group had the structure required of an enterprise. While the circuit noted the “limitations of the evidence in this case,” it found that the evidence was sufficient. The Burden organization had “multiple members who joined in the shared purpose of selling drugs and promoting such sales.” They had a meeting place from which they could sell in secret, store guns and plan. And their activities were “orderly because there was a hierarchical structure in place.” Nor did it matter that there were “other styles of organization between the narcotics business and the violent acts.”

As for the pattern requirement, the statute requires “criminal acts that have the same or similar purposes, results, participants, victims or methods of commission or otherwise are interrelated by distinguishing characteristics and are not isolated events.” There must be at least two acts that are related and that amount to or pose a threat of continued criminal activity. “Horizontal” relatedness requires that the predicate acts be related to each other, but this can be indirect - a common relationship of each act to the enterprise is enough. “Vertical” relatedness means that each act is related to the enterprise. Both types of relatedness must be proven, but each is satisfied by “linking each predicate act to the enterprise.” The pattern element was satisfied here, even though the violent acts here were “the type of conduct that the defendants could have committed absent a connection to the enterprise.” The court agreed that the fact that the violent acts were discussed at the same location where the narcotics activity took place was not enough to establish vertical relatedness. But the violence between the Burdens and rival gang members had its genesis in a drug debt to a Burden member, and that was sufficient.

One defendant also raised an interesting Crawford issue, claiming that an informant’s statements on a wire were “testimonial” because the cooperator consented to be wired and knew that what he said could be used against others at a future criminal trial. The defendant relied on United States v. Saget, 377 F.3d 223, 228 (2d Cir. 2004), where the circuit wrote: “Crawford at least suggests that the determinative factor in whether a declarant bears testimony is the declarant’s awareness or expectation that his or her statements may later be used at trial.”

The court here noted that this language is dictum and was limited in a later case. Instead, the court held that a declarant’s awareness that his words may be used at a later trial is only “part of the equation,” and “it is the law of this circuit that it is not the sole touchstone.” Looking at the particulars of the statements here, the court found that they were not testimonial. Nothing that the informant said “was spoken for the purpose of accusing. Rather, his comments were made to elicit inculpating statements by others present.” Thus, the “declarant’s purpose in speaking matters,” and a statement “the purpose of which is 'non-accusatory' is not testimonial.”

All five defendants won Regalado remands, however, so that the district court could revisit their crack sentences.

Cap’n Crunched

United States v. Pizzonia, No. 07-4314-cr (2d Cir. August 19, 2009) (Calabresi, Straub, Raggi, CJJ)

Dominick Pizzonia, a one-time captain for the Gambino crime family, was convicted of a racketeering conspiracy and sentenced to fifteen years in prison. On appeal, he raised an unsuccessful statute of limitations claim.

The government filed the indictment against Pizzonia on May 26, 2005; since a five-year statute of limitations applied, the government had to prove that Pizzonia’s participation in the conspiracy extended past May 26, 2000.

Pizzonia’s indictment charged a broad pattern of racketeering activity encompassing the entire spectrum of Gambino malfeasance. It alleged specifically that the pattern “consisted of” seven specified predicates. The jury found that he participated in only two of them: a 1992 double-murder conspiracy and a 1994-96 gambling offense. It also concluded that these two seemingly distinct events were sufficiently related to constitute a racketeering “pattern.” Finally, although the predicates ended well before May 26, 2000, the jury concluded that Pizzonia’s participation in the conspiracy continued beyond that date.

On appeal, Pizzonia argued that because the pleading alleged a racketeering pattern that “consisted of” seven acts, this temporally limited the conspiracy to the predicates. And, because the only proven predicate acts did not extend into the post-May 2000 limitations period, he argued, his conviction could not stand.

The circuit disagreed. The court held that the temporal scope of a RICO conspiracy is not limited to the charged or proven predicate acts. “[W]here, as here, the affairs of the enterprise in which a defendant agreed to participate through a pattern of racketeering are broadly defined to encompass all its criminal money-making objectives and all means used to protect those objectives, the conspiracy does not end, as a matter of law, with the last proved predicate.” Even if the government pleads a pattern that “consisted of” or “included” specified predicate acts, a defendant’s completion of those predicates “does not, as a matter of law, dictate the end of the pattern, much less the attainment or abandonment of the conspiracy’s overall objective.” Accordingly, an indictment drafted in this way does not “limit the temporal scope of the charged racketeering conspiracy to the time-frame of those predicates.”

Here, since Pizzonia “effectively concede[d]” that there was sufficient evidence that he participated in the conspiracy, although not in a charged RICO predicate, after May 26, 2000, the court affirmed his conviction.

A Family Affair

United States v. Yannotti, No. 06-5571-cr (2d Cir. September 4, 2008) (Katzmann, Parker, Raggi, CJJ)

Michael Yannotti was one of several Gambino crime family members accused of multiple violent acts - including extortion, loansharking and murder. After a jury trial, he was convicted of a RICO conspiracy, although the only predicates that the jury could agree that he committed were loansharking activities that had taken place eight years or more before he was indicted. The jury did not reach a verdict on a substantive RICO count, which the district court then dismissed on the ground that the government had failed to prove that Yannotti committed any predicate within the five-year statute of limitations. But the court did not dismiss the conspiracy count and, when it sentenced him, based its findings on conduct that the jury had not agreed that the government had proven. Yannotti received twenty years in prison, the statutory maximum.

The court of appeals affirmed both the conviction and the sentence.

1. Sufficiency of the Evidence

Yannotti first claimed that the evidence that he participated in a RICO conspiracy was insufficient. He specifically argued that the government did not prove that he was a member of the charged RICO conspiracy, which he maintained was defined by the pattern of racketeering acts charged in the indictment and not merely by his membership in the Gambino family.

The circuit held that its precedents “undermine[d]” Yannotti’s “core argument,” even as it agreed that there was no proof of his personal involvement in a predicate act that occurred within the statute of limitations. Specifically, the agreement proscribed by the racketeering conspiracy statute is the agreement “to participate in a charged enterprise’s affairs” and not one to “commit predicate acts.” Moreover, a conspirator need not be fully informed about his co-conspirators’ specific criminal acts, as long as he agreed to participate in the broader criminal conspiracy and the acts evincing his participation were within the scope of the illegal agreement.

Accordingly, here, the evidence was sufficient. The Gambino family was an enterprise whose members “routinely conducted its affairs through a nearly limitless range of racketeering activities.” Moreover, Yannotti had been formally inducted as a “solder” in the family, and had pledged to use any means necessary to further its objectives. Thus a jury could reasonably find that he agreed to participate in the family’s affairs.

Nor was there any time bar. A RICO conspiracy is only complete for statute of limitations purposes when its purposes have either been accomplished or abandoned. Thus, even if all of Yannotti’s own conduct occurred outside the statute of limitations, he was still liable, absent proof that the conspiracy concluded or that he withdrew.

2. Evidentiary Issues

Yannotti challenged two evidentiary rulings, both relating to two 1996 phone calls in which he discussed loansharking.

a. The Wiretap

First, he challenged the admission of the calls themselves because the conversations were obtained via a court-ordered wiretap, but Yannotti himself was not named in the wiretap application.

The circuit found no error. The application did not limit the request to conversations made to and by the owner of the target telephone. It included him, six associates, and “others as yet unknown,” and there is no legal requirement that the government specify in the application “each individual whose conversations may be intercepted.” Here, in authorizing the interceptions, the court properly found probable cause to believe that other unnamed targets would use that phone. Moreover, the intercepts were appropriately limited to conversations that addressed the conspiracy’s affairs. This and the order’s temporal limitations were adequate safeguards to prevent it from being transformed into a “general warrant.”

b. Lay Witness Opinion Testimony

Over objection, the district court permitted a Gambino family member to interpret comments that Yannotti made during the two conversations. Under Rule 701, a lay witness can only give opinion testimony if the opinion is (1) rationally based on his perceptions, (2) helpful to the determination of a fact in issue and (3) not based on scientific, or other specialized knowledge. Yannotti argued that this third prong was not satisfied, because the witness based his testimony on his specialized knowledge of the Gambino family’s operations.

The circuit disagreed. The first two prongs of the rule were clearly met here. The witness had been personally involved in the loansharking activities of the Gambino family, and his testimony was unquestionably helpful to the jury.

Thus, the court held, “where a witness derives his opinion solely from insider perceptions of a conspiracy of which he was a member, he may share his perspective as to aspects of the scheme about which he has gained knowledge,” and may do so as a lay witness under Rule 701. This is so despite the third prong of the rule. Here, the witness’s opinions came from his own loansharking experience and hence “derived from a reasoning process familiar to average persons,” and did not “depend on the sort of specialized training that” expert witnesses rely on “when interpreting the results of their own experiments or investigations.”

3. The Sentencing

When the court sentenced Yannotti, it took into account, for guidelines purposes, an attempted murder that the government had not proven beyond a reasonable doubt, but that the court concluded had been proven by a preponderance of the evidence.

Yannotti argued that the court violated U.S.S.G. §1B1.2(d), which provides that a “conviction on a count charging a conspiracy to commit more than one offense shall be treated as if the defendant had been convicted on a separate count of conspiracy for each offense that the defendant conspired to commit.” He asserted that this means that the guideline range for participation in a RICO conspiracy can be calculated based only on those predicate acts of which the defendant was actually convicted.

The circuit disagreed. The charged conspiracy, although it involved multiple racketeering predicates, was not the kind of “multi-object conspiracy” referenced in § 1B1.2(d). Rather, the sole object of the conspiracy was to further the affairs of the Gambino family. Despite all of the various acts that made up this pattern of activity, the underlying objective was this singular one. “Because overt acts are not distinct offenses that must be proven to sustain a RICO conspiracy conviction, and the RICO conspiracy charged in this case is appropriately viewed as a single-object conspiracy ... U.S.S.G. § 1B1.2(d) is inapplicable.”