United States v. Applins
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 3871
| 2d Cir. | 2011Background
- Seven defendants were named in a RICO conspiracy indictment alleging Elk Block gang activity in Syracuse, NY, including drug distribution, violence, and murders.
- Two defendants pled guilty prior to trial (Charmish Singletary and Ronnie Parnell), while five defendants proceeded to trial on the conspiracy and related predicate acts.
- Evidence showed Elk Block operated a continuing enterprise in which members pooled drug proceeds, supplied wholesale crack, protected territory with firearms, and retaliated against rivals.
- The government presented extensive trial testimony and exhibits detailing gang hierarchy, territory, signs, tattoos, and coordinated violent acts to maintain drug distribution in Elk Block territory.
- The district court instructed on RICO conspiracy law, and the jury found all five trial defendants guilty of participating in a pattern of racketeering activity.
- Gregory Thomas challenged his sentence under the crack/powder disparity; the court remanded for resentencing consistent with Kimbrough, while other convictions and sentences were affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is enterprise existence an element of RICO conspiracy? | Elk Block enterprise must be proven as element. | Salinas holds enterprise not required for §1962(d). | Enterprise not required; conviction upheld on conspiracy theory. |
| Was there sufficient evidence of agreement to form an enterprise? | Evidence showed Elk Block functioned as a continuing enterprise with common purpose. | Disputes about whether formal enterprise existed negate liability. | Sufficient evidence supported agreement to form and participate in the enterprise. |
| Must the jury unanimously decide which specific predicate acts were agreed to? | Unanimity as to type of predicate acts suffices; not required to list specific acts. | Jury must unanimously identify specific predicate acts agreed to. | Unanimity as to type of predicate acts suffices; no requirement to unanimously identify specific acts. |
Key Cases Cited
- Salinas v. United States, 522 U.S. 52 (U.S. 1997) (no overt act requirement for RICO conspiracy; enterprise not element)
- Boyle v. United States, 129 S. Ct. 2237 (S. Ct. 2009) (association-in-fact enterprise may lack hierarchical structure)
- Zichettello v. United States, 208 F.3d 72 (2d Cir. 2000) (conspirator need know general contours of conspiracy)
- Benevento v. United States, 836 F.2d 60 (2d Cir. 1987) (proof required to form enterprise and participate in its affairs)
- Glecier v. United States, 923 F.2d 496 (7th Cir. 1991) (RICO conspiracy does not require proving predicate acts by each conspirator)
- Pizzonia v. United States, 577 F.3d 455 (2d Cir. 2009) (overlapping evidence may prove enterprise and conspiracy)
- Yannotti v. United States, 541 F.3d 112 (2d Cir. 2008) (conviction under §1962(d) not require proof of predicate acts by defendant)
- Kimbrough v. United States, 552 U.S. 85 (U.S. 2007) (district courts may consider crack-powder disparity in sentencing)