United States v. Alan Barnett
660 F. App'x 235
| 4th Cir. | 2016Background
- In 2012 the government indicted 28 alleged United Blood Nation (UBN) members; Samantha Williams and Alan Barnett were tried together. Barnett was convicted on multiple counts including RICO conspiracy and violent and drug offenses; Williams was convicted of RICO conspiracy only.
- The government relied on wiretaps, recorded calls, letters/emails, co-conspirator testimony, and undercover drug buys; Barnett’s phone was wiretapped ≈90 days; Williams appeared on <10 calls and exchanged letters/emails with incarcerated UBN leader Daryl Wilkinson.
- Barnett was a high‑ranking G‑Shine/UBN member in North Carolina; evidence included a June 23, 2011 recorded call ordering violence against Deray Jackson and subsequent assault. Jury sentenced Barnett to 360 months.
- Williams was Wilkinson’s girlfriend and "first lady" for UBN; government relied on evidence of an alleged dues/extortion program (the “Reaching Back” letter), a few calls and emails, and alleged orders concerning targets (Star, Robbs, Dread). Williams was sentenced to 72 months.
- The Fourth Circuit affirmed Barnett’s convictions and sentence, rejecting his challenges to sufficiency of evidence for the murder-in-aid-of-racketeering conspiracy, certain admissibility and jury‑instruction claims, and harmlessness of a sentencing‑guideline issue.
- The court reversed Williams’s RICO‑conspiracy conviction, holding the government failed to prove she knowingly agreed that at least two predicate racketeering acts forming a pattern would be committed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Gov't) | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for Barnett’s conspiracy to commit murder in aid of racketeering | Recorded call and co‑conspirator testimony show Barnett agreed to kill Deray Jackson to enforce discipline and hierarchy | Barnett argued the murder conspiracy was only a subset (BGB) and not tied to UBN or his interest in maintaining position | Affirmed: evidence supported that the murder conspiracy was related to UBN and aimed to maintain/increase Barnett’s status |
| Admissibility of lay interpretations of slang on recorded calls | Testimony explained gang jargon and contextualized calls for jury | Barnett contended lay witnesses cannot interpret calls they did not join | Even if erroneous, testimony was cumulative or harmless; no reversible error |
| Jury instruction on RICO "pattern" requirement | Gov't argued instructions correctly explained elements | Barnett sought an instruction emphasizing predicate acts must be related to the enterprise | Affirmed: overall charge adequately conveyed that predicate acts must be part of the charged RICO conspiracy |
| Sufficiency of evidence for Williams’s RICO conspiracy conviction | Williams served as an information conduit and advisor; jury could infer she knew and agreed UBN would commit robberies/drug crimes, extortion, and murders | Williams argued government presented no direct evidence she agreed to particular predicate acts or that extortion used force/fear; murder evidence lacked intent to kill | Reversed: evidence insufficient to show Williams knowingly agreed to at least two related predicate racketeering acts forming a RICO pattern |
Key Cases Cited
- Salinas v. United States, 522 U.S. 52 (defines agreement element for RICO conspiracy)
- H.J., Inc. v. Northwestern Bell Telephone Co., 492 U.S. 229 (defines RICO pattern: relationship and continuity)
- United States v. Mouzone, 687 F.3d 207 (4th Cir.) (government must show defendant agreed that at least two racketeering acts would be committed)
- United States v. Kingrea, 573 F.3d 186 (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence)
- Burgos v. United States, 94 F.3d 849 (conspiracy requires proof of each element beyond reasonable doubt)
- United States v. Fiel, 35 F.3d 997 (elements of conspiracy to commit murder in aid of racketeering)
- United States v. Tipton, 90 F.3d 861 (inference that violent acts further enterprise and maintain status)
- United States v. Ocasio, 750 F.3d 399 (4th Cir.) (extortion jury instruction authority)