United States v. Cain
671 F.3d 271
| 2d Cir. | 2012Background
- Indictment charged Cain, Chris Cain, and Jamie Soha with RICO participation and multiple offenses from 1994–2005 involving extortion, arson, fraud, and witness tampering.
- Trial in 2007–2008 with 60 witnesses and 241 exhibits; jury found Cain, Chris Cain, and Soha guilty on multiple racketeering and substantive counts.
- Hobbs Act extortion predicates were tied to attempts to take over tree-service and logging businesses in Niagara County.
- Cain and Soha challenged sufficiency of extortion evidence and the district court’s failure to instruct on RICO relatedness/continuity.
- Chris Cain’s conviction and RICO conspiracy challenged due to a faulty pattern instruction; judgment remanded for Chris Cain and remanded for resentencing on others.
- Cain raised a separate claim that his choice of counsel was improperly overridden by pretrial disqualification of his retained attorney.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| RICO pattern instruction error | Cain/Soha: instruction failed to require relatedness and continuity | Cain/Soha: pattern elements not properly taught | Reversal for Chris Cain; plain error for pattern instruction; vacate/retry for Chris Cain; others affirmed on related grounds |
| Sufficiency of extortion evidence against Soha and Cain | Proved extortion predicates; acts aimed at market control | Evidence insufficient to show specific assets extorted | Extortion convictions for Soha and Cain affirmed on sufficiency grounds |
| David Cain choice-of-counsel conflict | Disqualification violated Sixth Amendment right to counsel of choice | Disqualification justified; waivers and Wheat principles apply | Disqualification not reversible error; district court’s decision within broad discretion |
| Speedy trial and other remaining challenges | Delay prejudiced Cain; systemic issues affected rights | Delay justified by complexity and conflicts; lack of prejudice | No abuse of discretion; speedy-trial claim rejected; other issues denied or moot due to remand |
| Chris Cain’s conspiracy conviction impact from pattern-error | Conspiracy charge tied to pattern acts; error contaminates verdict | Conspiracy verdict could be based on other acts; pattern error reversible for conspiracy too | Conspiracy conviction to be reversed along with substantive RICO conviction; remand for retrial on RICO charges if pursued |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Indelicato, 865 F.2d 1370 (2d Cir.1989) (pattern requires interrelation and continuity for RICO)
- Sedima, S.P.R.L. v. Imrex Co., 473 U.S. 479 (1985) (establishes pattern of racketeering requirement)
- H.J. Inc. v. Northwestern Bell Tel. Co., 492 U.S. 229 (1989) (continuity and relatedness concepts for RICO pattern)
- Scheidler v. National Organization for Women, 537 U.S. 393 (2003) (extortion theory and property rights in Hobbs Act context)
- United States v. Tropiano, 418 F.2d 1069 (2d Cir.1969) (right to solicit accounts as property for extortion)
- United States v. Gotti, 459 F.3d 296 (2d Cir.2006) (treats Tropiano/Scheidler distinctions in pattern analysis)
- United States v. Daidone, 471 F.3d 371 (2d Cir.2006) (horizontal/vertical relatedness framework for pattern)
- United States v. Long, 917 F.2d 691 (2d Cir.1990) (plain-error review for pattern instruction)
- Jones v. United States, 529 U.S. 852 (2000) (commerce-element analysis for jurisdictional/structural claims)
- Levy v. United States, 25 F.3d 146 (2d Cir.1994) (conflicts-of-interest inquiry framework for counsel disqualification)