United States v. Knight
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 22054
| 10th Cir. | 2011Background
- Knight, a Wichita Crips leader, oversaw drug distribution and operated drug houses to fund the gang.
- Police found crack cocaine at a first house and drugs and paraphernalia at a second house; Knight’s name appeared on an address label.
- He was convicted of RICO racketeering, conspiracy to participate in a RICO enterprise, conspiracy to distribute marijuana, possession with intent to distribute cocaine base, and maintaining the first drug house.
- He received a 210-month sentence after trial.
- He was acquitted of some conspiracies and maintaining the second drug house.
- The district court gave jury instructions on pattern of racketeering and relatedness, and Knight did not object at trial, triggering plain error review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the pattern element was properly instructed | Government argues instruction followed H.J. Inc. with flexible relatedness | Knight contends instruction expanded pattern inappropriate to relate acts to the enterprise | No plain error; instruction permissible under settled law |
| Whether the constructive possession instruction was required | Government asserts no error since nexus shown by witness | Knight argues missing constructive possession definition undermined defense | No plain error; no controlling authority requiring such instruction in this context |
Key Cases Cited
- Sedima, S.P.R.L. v. Imrex Co., 473 U.S. 479 (U.S. 1985) (defines pattern as relatedness and continuing threat)
- H.J. Inc. v. Northwestern Bell Telephone Co., 492 U.S. 229 (U.S. 1989) (pattern = relation + threat of continued activity; residual language allowed)
- United States v. Jones, 468 F.3d 704 (10th Cir. 2006) (standard for reviewing jury instructions under plain error)
- United States v. Story, 635 F.3d 1241 (10th Cir. 2011) (unsettled law; no plain error if law unsettled)
- United States v. Goode, 483 F.3d 676 (10th Cir. 2007) (plain error review in jury instructions)
- United States v. Smith, 413 F.3d 1253 (10th Cir. 2005) (discussed relatedness under H.J. Inc.; abrogated on other grounds)