United States v. David Camez
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 18580
| 9th Cir. | 2016Background
- Defendant David Ray Camez was charged under RICO for participation in the online “carder.su” enterprise trafficking stolen/counterfeit IDs and access devices.
- Indictment alleged racketeering predicates spanning his 17th and 18th birthdays; Camez was 20 at indictment.
- District court instructed jury it could not convict solely on juvenile (pre-18) acts and required proof the defendant continued participation after turning 18. Jury found at least one predicate proved pre-18 and at least one proved post-18.
- Camez contested only the substantive RICO conviction, arguing the Juvenile Delinquency Act (JDA) forbids using pre-majority acts as substantive proof of continuing crimes.
- The Ninth Circuit reviewed statutory interpretation de novo and held the district court’s instruction—and admission of pre-majority acts as substantive evidence of a continuing crime—was correct.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the JDA bars use of pre-18 conduct as substantive proof of a continuing crime charged against an adult indicted at 18–20 | Government: adult prosecution permitted; pre-18 acts may be considered to prove a continuing offense if defendant continued participation after 18 | Camez: JDA creates a substantive bar; juries may only consider post-18 acts as proof of guilt | The Ninth Circuit affirmed that pre-majority acts may be admitted as substantive proof of a continuing crime where the jury also finds post-majority participation; district court instruction was proper. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Watson, 792 F.3d 1174 (9th Cir.) (standard of review for statutory interpretation)
- United States v. Fernandez, 388 F.3d 1199 (9th Cir.) (elements of §1962(c))
- United States v. Wong, 40 F.3d 1347 (2d Cir.) (pre-18 acts admissible for continuing crimes; ratification analogy)
- United States v. Thomas, 114 F.3d 228 (D.C. Cir.) (pre-18 acts may not be used as substantive proof; contrary view)
- United States v. Delatorre, 157 F.3d 1205 (10th Cir.) (rejecting Thomas; JDA not so broad)
- United States v. Cruz, 805 F.2d 1464 (11th Cir.) (no special instruction required; government must show post-18 participation)
- United States v. Frasquillo-Zomosa, 626 F.2d 99 (9th Cir.) (JDA is procedural; does not add substantive elements)
- United States v. Araiza-Valdez, 713 F.2d 430 (9th Cir.) (JDA creates procedural mechanism, not a separate substantive offense)
- United States v. Welch, 15 F.3d 1202 (1st Cir.) (jury should be instructed to find post-18 participation for conviction)