United States v. Henley
766 F.3d 893
| 8th Cir. | 2014Background
- Six Wheels of Soul (WoS) leaders/members (Henley, Smith, Elkins, Fry, Robinson, Peteet) were tried for RICO conspiracy and multiple violent offenses arising from coordinated inter-club violence across the Midwest; convictions were returned after a 35‑day jury trial and lengthy deliberations.
- The government’s multi‑year investigation relied heavily on informant Matthew Hunter (wearing recording devices and doing controlled buys) and a Title III wiretap on Allan Hunter’s cell phone; defendants moved to suppress electronic surveillance evidence, which the district court denied.
- Trial evidence showed an organized national structure (constitution, dues, officer roles, regional meetings), a leadership culture encouraging secrecy and violence, and multiple violent incidents (shootings, robbery of “colors,” club‑house killings) tied to disputes over rival clubs’ use of territory/patches.
- Defendants challenged sufficiency of evidence for RICO enterprise, pattern of racketeering, and individual predicate acts; the court applied highly deferential sufficiency review and sustained convictions based on the totality of testimony, recordings, and physical evidence.
- Additional appellate issues rejected included: Eastern District of Missouri jurisdiction for the wiretap, authentication and preservation of recordings, use of uncharged‑crime evidence, request for special verdict forms, jury instructions on attempt, severance, exclusion of an affidavit/hearsay, and a sentencing leadership enhancement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Existence of a RICO enterprise | Gov: WoS had common purpose, formal/informal organization, continuity and distinct structure | Defs: WoS was a loose federation of chapters without centralized control | Affirmed: Sufficient evidence of enterprise (constitution, dues, officers, coordinated violence) |
| Pattern of racketeering | Gov: Multiple related predicate acts showing relatedness and continuity (purpose, victims, methods) | Defs: Acts were isolated, personal, sporadic disputes | Affirmed: Predicates related by common purpose (territorial dominance) and continuity |
| Sufficiency as to individual defendants (e.g., Smith, Henley, Robinson, Peteet) | Gov: Circumstantial and recorded evidence showed knowledge, agreement, participation, and acts in furtherance | Defs: Insufficient direct proof; reliance on single witnesses or single predicate acts; self‑defense | Affirmed: Under deferential standard, evidence (recordings, witness testimony, leadership role, physical evidence) supported convictions |
| Wiretap jurisdiction and suppression | Gov: Intercepts were first heard at listening post in E.D. Mo.; court had jurisdiction to authorize orders | Defs: Target phone was in Illinois; E.D. Mo. lacked territorial jurisdiction | Affirmed: Court had jurisdiction where intercepted communications were first heard (citing Rodriguez line) |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Turkette, 452 U.S. 576 (1981) (RICO enterprise definition)
- H.J., Inc. v. Northwestern Bell Tel. Co., 492 U.S. 229 (1989) (pattern: relatedness and continuity requirement)
- Salinas v. United States, 522 U.S. 52 (1997) (RICO conspiracy liability via agreement to participate with knowledge others will commit predicates)
- United States v. Kragness, 830 F.2d 842 (8th Cir. 1987) (elements for proving RICO enterprise)
- United States v. Leisure, 844 F.2d 1347 (8th Cir. 1988) (enterprise and continuity analysis)
- United States v. Rodriguez, 968 F.2d 130 (2d Cir. 1992) (wiretap jurisdiction includes where intercepted communications are first heard)
- United States v. Roach, 28 F.3d 729 (8th Cir. 1994) (authentication/admissibility factors for electronic recordings)