United States v. Capers
20 F.4th 105
2d Cir.2021Background
- James Capers, a member of the Leland Avenue Crew gang, was convicted after a six-day trial of: RICO conspiracy (18 U.S.C. § 1962(d)), narcotics conspiracy (21 U.S.C. §§ 841, 846), and murder by use of a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence or drug trafficking crime (18 U.S.C. § 924(j)).
- Capers admitted he shot and killed Allen McQueen; his defense was that the killing was a personal, solo act of revenge unconnected to the gang’s criminal enterprise.
- Trial evidence tied Capers to Leland’s drug distribution, public threats of retaliation after the gang leader’s murder, a revenge-minded YouTube video, cellphone messages, and actions that led to McQueen’s shooting.
- The jury found the RICO pattern included McQueen’s murder and a crack-cocaine conspiracy of 280+ grams; it returned a general guilty verdict on the § 924(j) count without specifying which predicate (RICO or narcotics conspiracy) it relied on.
- After briefing, Supreme Court and Second Circuit decisions (notably United States v. Davis and Barrett) prompted supplemental briefing about whether RICO conspiracy qualifies as a "crime of violence" for § 924 purposes; the Second Circuit vacated the § 924(j) conviction (Count Five) and affirmed the remainder.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether there was sufficient evidence that McQueen's murder was part of the RICO pattern (Count One) | Evidence of gang membership, group threats/retaliation, social-media posts, post-shooting communications tie the killing to Leland’s racketeering aims | The killing was a personal act of revenge, not tied to RICO objectives | Sufficient evidence supported that the murder could be part of the enterprise’s pattern; conviction on Count One stands |
| Whether the § 924(j) verdict was supported by a valid predicate (narcotics conspiracy or RICO) | Murder occurred in furtherance of narcotics conspiracy or RICO; either can predicate § 924(j) | No nexus to drug trafficking; RICO conspiracy does not categorically qualify as a crime of violence | Evidence could support a § 924(j) verdict predicated on the narcotics conspiracy, but see instructional-error holding below |
| Whether instructing the jury that RICO conspiracy is a “crime of violence” (predicate for § 924(j)) was error | Court may look to the charged/ proved conduct (murder) or aggravated RICO notice to treat the RICO conspiracy as violent | RICO conspiracy is an agreement-only offense lacking an element of force and thus is not a crime of violence | RICO conspiracy is not a crime of violence; the district court plainly erred in so instructing; vacated Count Five because the jury’s general verdict could have rested on that erroneous theory |
| Whether murder under § 924(j) requires premeditation and thus a premeditation instruction | N/A | Capers: judge should have instructed jury that murder requires premeditation | Premeditation is not an element of “murder” for § 1111/§ 924(j); no such instruction required |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Davis, 139 S. Ct. 2319 (2019) (invalidated the § 924(c) residual clause as unconstitutionally vague)
- United States v. Barrett, 937 F.3d 126 (2d Cir. 2019) (post-Davis treatment of conspiracy predicates; Hobbs Act conspiracy not a crime of violence)
- Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 (1990) (categorical approach: crime of violence requires elements that necessarily involve force)
- Yates v. United States, 354 U.S. 298 (1957) (discusses danger of general verdicts on disjunctive theories when one theory is legally insufficient)
- United States v. Martinez, 991 F.3d 347 (2d Cir. 2021) (reasoned that RICO conspiracy cannot categorically be a crime of violence; foreshadowed the panel’s conclusion)
- United States v. White, 7 F.4th 90 (2d Cir. 2021) (explained RICO conspiracy elements and the nature of agreement liability)