33 F.4th 63
2d Cir.2022Background
- Three members of the Six Tre Outlaw Gangsta Disciples (Ashburn — leader; Laurent and Merritt — foot soldiers) were tried for gang-related violence spanning 2008–2011.
- Superseding indictment charged RICO (substantive §1962(c)), RICO conspiracy (§1962(d)), murders and assaults in aid of racketeering (§1959), Hobbs Act robbery/conspiracy, and multiple §924(c) firearms counts.
- After a five‑week jury trial the jury convicted all three on 12 of 14 counts; substantial prison terms (multiple life sentences) were imposed; appeals followed.
- Central appellate issues: sufficiency of evidence for RICO and racketeering predicates (including murder in aid of racketeering), and whether various predicate offenses qualify as "crimes of violence" for §924(c) after Davis/Capers.
- Court affirmed most convictions (including substantive RICO, RICO conspiracy, murder-in-aid of racketeering, and many §924(c) counts) but: (1) VACATED Merritt’s §924(c) Count Three because it may have rested on RICO conspiracy (not a crime of violence); and (2) REVERSED and DISMISSED Laurent’s Count Ten (§924(c) predicated on Hobbs Act robbery conspiracy) with prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Gov't) | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for substantive RICO & RICO conspiracy | Proof of an enterprise, pattern, and related predicates (robberies, murders, attempted murders) supported convictions | Defendants: acts were personal, isolated, or not vertically related to the Gang | Convictions affirmed — jury could reasonably infer relatedness, pattern, and agreement to conduct enterprise affairs (Ashburn, Laurent, Merritt) |
| Murder in aid of racketeering (§1959) (Ashburn, Laurent) | Murders were committed to maintain/increase status or fulfill gang duties; leader endorsement and conduct show gang nexus | Defendants: killings were spontaneous/personal, not aimed at advancing gang status | Affirmed — evidence supported intent to maintain/increase position and the gang-related motive |
| §924(c) Count Three predicated on substantive RICO (Count One) and RICO conspiracy (Count Two) | §924(c) may be predicated on substantive RICO; jury could rely on violent predicates in Count One | Defs: RICO conspiracy is not categorically a crime of violence; jury instruction error (allowed both predicates) | Because RICO conspiracy is not a crime of violence (Capers), allowing the jury to rely on it was a Yates‑type error. Harmless for Ashburn and Laurent (affirmed); not harmless for Merritt — Merritt’s Count Three VACATED and remanded for resentencing |
| §924(c) predicated on Hobbs Act robbery conspiracy (Laurent Count Ten) | Government treated Hobbs Act conspiracy as a crime of violence | Laurent: conspiracy can be committed without force; not categorically violent | Following Barrett, Hobbs Act robbery conspiracy is not a §924(c) crime of violence — Count Ten reversed and dismissed with prejudice |
| Bruton / severance and Brady (Laurent) | Statements redacted to avoid Bruton; government disclosed witness statements timely under Brady | Laurent: redactions obvious; government failed to timely provide usable contact info warranting sanctions/missing‑witness instruction | No Bruton violation — redactions + limiting instruction sufficient; Brady disclosures were timely and adequate; no abuse in denying missing‑witness instruction |
| Warrantless seizure of gun from Laurent’s room | Entry/seizure justified by exigent circumstances (shots fired into adjacent apartment); gun in plain view | Laurent: search/entry violated Fourth Amendment | Admission upheld — officers reasonably entered and seized under exigent‑circumstances/plain‑view doctrines |
| Miscellaneous: public‑trial, sentencing, ineffective assistance | Gov't: district court acted within discretion on closures and sentencing; ineffective‑assistance claims lack record | Defendants: courtroom exclusion of Ashburn’s children violated public‑trial right; Ashburn’s life sentence unreasonable; Merritt claims counsel ineffective | No plain error on public‑trial exclusion; sentencing challenged but not shown unreasonable; ineffective‑assistance claims not adjudicated on direct appeal (remedy: §2255) |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Capers, 20 F.4th 105 (2d Cir. 2021) (RICO conspiracy cannot be a crime of violence for §924(c))
- United States v. Barrett, 937 F.3d 126 (2d Cir. 2019) (Hobbs Act robbery conspiracy is not a crime of violence under §924(c))
- United States v. Davis, 139 S. Ct. 2319 (2019) (holding §924(c)’s residual clause unconstitutionally vague)
- United States v. Ivezaj, 568 F.3d 88 (2d Cir. 2009) (substantive RICO may be a crime of violence when based on violent predicates)
- United States v. Martinez, 991 F.3d 347 (2d Cir. 2021) (post‑Davis treatment of §924(c) predicates and plea/plain‑error analysis)
- Yates v. United States, 354 U.S. 298 (1957) (jury verdict ambiguous between valid and invalid theories is reversible error)
- H.J., Inc. v. Northwestern Bell Tel. Co., 492 U.S. 229 (1989) (‘pattern’ of racketeering requires relatedness and continuity)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (standard for sufficiency of the evidence)