United States v. Bingham
653 F.3d 983
| 9th Cir. | 2011Background
- Aryan Brotherhood inmates organized under a Council, then a three-person Commission, with hierarchical roles including a prison-level lead and message-passing structure.
- AB's goals included prisoner control and criminal enterprises; violence was used to enforce discipline and expand influence, including murders and intimidation.
- Bingham and Hevle, AB members, were involved in planning and executing murders (Joyner, Salaam, Ray) and in VICAR activities; Bingham ordered attacks after declaring war on DC Blacks.
- Key murders include Joyner and Salaam (August 28, 1997) and Ray (1990s), with preparation and execution coordinated through coded messages and prison communications.
- Evidence linked Bingham to war declarations and orders to kill, including coded messages and communications to other AB members at multiple prisons.
- The indictment charged multiple RICO counts including substantive RICO, RICO conspiracy, VICAR murders, and related conspiracies; trial ended with convictions for Bingham and Hevle.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for VICAR murders (Joyner and Salaam) | Bingham's war message was a warning, not an instruction to kill. | Messages and coded text show intent to kill and support the VICAR murders. | Evidence sufficient to support aiding/abetting or conspirator liability for VICAR murders. |
| Continuity of enterprise pre/post-1993 for RICO | Restructuring transformed AB into a new enterprise; pre-1993 acts cannot be connected. | AB maintained the same criminal purpose and framework across restructuring, so acts remained related. | AB remained a continuing enterprise; pre/post-1993 acts sufficiently related for RICO purposes. |
| Pinkerton liability versus aiding-and-abetting for Hevle's involvement | Pinkerton liability applies for all co-conspirators for reasonably foreseeable acts. | Aiding-and-abetting liability should be limited and the acts may be too remote. | Pinkerton liability appropriately extends to Hevle for the murders; related conspiracy liability affirmed. |
| Due process and destroyed evidence in Benitez-Mendez case | Destruction of pants was exculpatory and violated Trombetta. | Comparable evidence existed; no bad faith shown. | No due process violation; comparable evidence supported conviction. |
| Grand jury outrageous conduct defense for Hevle | Government misled grand jury about cause of AB-DC Blacks war. | No structural grand jury error; no obligation to disclose substantial exculpatory evidence. | Grand jury conduct not reversible error; conviction affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Odom, 329 F.3d 1032 (9th Cir. 2003) (sufficiency standard for evidence)
- Boyle v. United States, 129 S. Ct. 2237 (supreme court 2009) (RICO enterprise need not have formal hierarchy)
- United States v. Adamson, 291 F.3d 606 (9th Cir. 2002) (constructive amendment doctrine in trial)
- California v. Trombetta, 467 U.S. 479 (1984) (destruction of potentially exculpatory evidence; comparable evidence)
- United States v. Sherlock, 962 F.2d 1349 (9th Cir. 1992) (evidence handling and exculpatory value considerations)
- Hayes v. Brown, 399 F.3d 972 (9th Cir. 2005) (standard of review for sufficiency of evidence; confidence in conviction)
- United States v. Garcia, 151 F.3d 1243 (9th Cir. 1998) (gang membership alone not enough for conspiracy to assault)
- United States v. Castaneda, 9 F.3d 761 (9th Cir. 1993) (example of limited Pinkerton liability in low-role conspirators)
- United States v. Nakai, 413 F.3d 1019 (9th Cir. 2005) (Pinkerton liability scope)
- United States v. Hernandez-Orellana, 539 F.3d 994 (9th Cir. 2008) (contrast between aiding-and-abetting and Pinkerton liability)