15 F.4th 814
7th Cir.2021Background:
- Eddie Hicks, a longtime Chicago police officer, led a crew that used police resources, forged warrants, and fake badges to steal drugs, guns, and extort dealers.
- FBI used bait money in an undercover investigation; Hicks and his crew stole that money, leading to §641 charges for taking U.S. government property.
- A jury convicted Hicks on eight felonies including a RICO violation (18 U.S.C. §1962) and two §641 counts; he does not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence.
- At trial Hicks’s counsel approved the jury instructions, did not move to dismiss the indictment, and did not object to prosecutorial argument—issues now raised on appeal were thus waived or forfeited.
- Hicks argued the jury might have confused RICO concepts (enterprise, conspiracy, pattern) and that §641 requires proof the defendant knew the money was U.S. property.
- The Seventh Circuit affirmed: RICO challenge fails due to waiver/forfeiture (no plain error), and §641 does not require knowledge of federal ownership (relying on Feola distinction from Rehaif).
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| RICO conviction: jury confusion between enterprise, conspiracy, pattern | Jury could have conflated concepts and misapplied RICO elements | Indictment/instructions were adequate; defense approved instructions and raised no objections | Waived/forfeited; no plain error; RICO conviction affirmed |
| §641 mens rea: must defendant know money belonged to U.S.? | Jury should have been instructed that defendant knew money was U.S. property | Knowledge of federal ownership not required; intent to steal (knowing property belonged to another) suffices | Knowledge of federal ownership not required; conviction stands |
| Effect of Rehaif on knowledge elements | Rehaif suggests broader duty to prove defendant knew statutory facts (apply here) | Rehaif concerns different element type; does not overrule Feola or apply to federal-ownership element | Rehaif inapplicable; Feola governs—no knowledge-of-federal-connection requirement |
Key Cases Cited
- H.J. Inc. v. Northwestern Bell Tel. Co., 492 U.S. 229 (RICO pattern/enterprise framework)
- United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (procedural default; waiver vs. forfeiture; plain-error review)
- United States v. Feola, 420 U.S. 671 (federal-status elements need not be known by defendant)
- Rehaif v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 2191 (knowledge requirement for elements essential to crime)
- United States v. Smith, 489 F.2d 1330 (7th Cir. precedent on §641 knowledge)
- United States v. Jermendy, 544 F.2d 640 (2d Cir. holding that §641 does not require proof defendant knew federal ownership)