United States v. Lorenzo Gonzalez
786 F.3d 714
| 9th Cir. | 2015Background
- Gonzalez was convicted at trial of racketeering conspiracy (Count One) and VICAR conspiracy to murder rival gang members (Count Two) and conspiracy to murder Edward Clark (Count Ten; focus of Count Two appeal).
- The appeal centers on district court’s jury instructions for Count Two, specifically the unanimity requirement.
- District court declined Gonzalez’s request for a unanimity instruction on the precise conspiracy and instead added an augmented instruction requiring unanimous agreement on the person or persons who were the intended victims.
- Most of the Government’s evidence consisted of wiretapped conversations about different, unnamed rival gang members on various dates.
- The court held the augmented unanimity instruction adequately protected the unanimous-jury-verdict right by tying unanimity to the intended victims and the elements of the offense, avoiding a verdict based on different conspiracies.
- The court further concluded that unanimity on the specific overt act is not required, provided the elements are unanimously proven.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Unanimity on the conspiracy elements instruction | Gonzalez argues for a specific unanimity on the exact conspiracy. | Gonzalez contends the court erred by not mandating unanimity on the particular conspiracy. | No abuse; instruction adequate. |
| Overt act unanimity requirement | Different jurors could rely on different overt acts. | Unanimity on the specific act is not required. | Not required; elements unanimous suffices. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Ferris, 719 F.2d 1405 (9th Cir. 1983) (unanimity required on elements, not necessarily on which factual acts proved them)
- Richardson v. United States, 526 U.S. 813 (U.S. 1999) (jury must unanimously find each element proved)
- United States v. Ruiz, 710 F.3d 1077 (9th Cir. 2013) (no general requirement to agree on preliminary factual issues)
- United States v. Chen Chiang Liu, 631 F.3d 993 (9th Cir. 2011) (general unanimity instruction often sufficient; evaluate in context)
- Schad v. Arizona, 501 U.S. 624 (1981) (plurality on unanimity of underlying facts; informs practice)
- United States v. Hofus, 598 F.3d 1171 (9th Cir. 2010) (unanimity on substantial-step element can be satisfied even if different acts are found)
- United States v. Kozeny, 667 F.3d 122 (2d Cir. 2011) (unanimity not required on which overt act)
- United States v. Griggs, 569 F.3d 341 (7th Cir. 2009) (unanimity on overt act not required)
- United States v. Sutherland, 656 F.2d 1181 (5th Cir. 1981) (unanimity on overt act not required)