941 F.3d 24
2d Cir.2019Background
- Defendant Roderick Arrington was tried for crimes arising from the "Schuele Boys," a neighborhood drug group in Buffalo; he was portrayed as an "enforcer" though his direct role in drug distribution was limited.
- On August 30, 2012, Arrington shot and killed Quincy Balance and fired at Damon Hunter; the government tied the shootings to retaliation after a fellow member's murder and to protection of the group’s drug enterprise.
- A superseding indictment charged Arrington with RICO conspiracy, narcotics conspiracy, multiple firearms offenses, murder in aid of racketeering (18 U.S.C. § 1959), and attempted murder in aid of racketeering, among other counts.
- Pretrial, Arrington’s trial counsel, Andrew LoTempio, was revealed to have previously represented co‑defendant Aaron Hicks; a Curcio hearing was held, Curcio counsel advised, and Arrington purportedly waived the conflict. Separately, LoTempio proposed severing trials and trying Arrington first—an option the district court adopted—but Arrington was not told about that strategic consequence during the waiver colloquy.
- A jury convicted Arrington on Counts 1–8 (including RICO, narcotics, § 1959 murder and attempted murder, and related firearms counts). On appeal the Second Circuit held the evidence was sufficient but concluded Arrington’s waiver of counsel’s conflict was not knowing and intelligent; the conviction was vacated and remanded for a new trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for RICO, narcotics, §1959, and firearms counts | Govt: evidence (eyewitness IDs, gang activity, threats, role as enforcer, music videos, post‑arrest statements) supports convictions | Arrington: peripheral role; no enterprise/motive linking murders to racketeering; insufficiency warrants acquittal | Evidence was sufficient on all counts when viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution |
| Existence of an association‑in‑fact enterprise and Arrington’s position | Govt: Schuele Boys functioned as a continuing unit selling drugs; Arrington served as enforcer, giving him a position | Arrington: limited participation—acts could be personal or mercenary, not to maintain enterprise position | Jury could reasonably find an enterprise, Arrington’s position, and that the shootings were in furtherance of maintaining/promoting his role (close call but upheld) |
| Adequacy of waiver of counsel’s conflict (LoTempio’s prior representation of Hicks and severance proposal) | Govt/District Ct: waiver was made after Curcio hearing and independent counsel; representation may continue | Arrington: waiver was uninformed—court failed to advise him of material strategic risks (severance and being tried first) | Waiver was not knowing and intelligent because Arrington was not informed of the severance/trial‑first consequences; Sixth Amendment violated; conviction vacated and remanded for new trial |
| Prejudice standard / remedy | Govt: strong evidence; conviction should stand | Arrington: actual conflict and inadequate waiver require reversal; prejudice presumed where conflict produced lapse | Court found an actual conflict and lapse in representation; under controlling precedent prejudice is presumed and new trial is required (court did not resolve juror‑replacement claim) |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
- Curcio v. United States, 680 F.2d 881 (2d Cir.) (procedure for waiving conflict of counsel)
- Iorizzo v. United States, 786 F.2d 52 (2d Cir. 1986) (requirements for informing defendant of conflict risks during waiver)
- Perez v. Barrio, 325 F.3d 115 (2d Cir. 2003) (analysis of waivable vs. unwaivable conflicts)
- Wheat v. United States, 486 U.S. 153 (district court duty to address possible conflicts in pretrial context)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (prejudice standard for ineffective assistance claims)
- Thai v. United States, 29 F.3d 785 (2d Cir. 1994) (§1959 motive analysis; purely mercenary motive undercuts racketeering nexus)
- Boyle v. United States, 556 U.S. 938 (association‑in‑fact enterprise definition)
- Levy v. United States, 25 F.3d 146 (2d Cir. 1994) (investigate possible conflicts; prejudice and lapse analysis)