820 F.3d 899
7th Cir.2016Background
- Four defendants were indicted for arranging the murder of Guillermo Jimenez Flores (Montes) in Mexico to protect a Chicago-based racketeering enterprise that produced false immigration documents.
- The district court initially dismissed the principal count as impermissibly extraterritorial; on appeal this court reversed in United States v. Leija-Sanchez, holding §1959(a)(1) can apply when a U.S.-based enterprise’s conduct reaches abroad.
- On remand one defendant pled guilty; a jury convicted the other three of (inter alia) 18 U.S.C. §1959 (murder in aid of racketeering), 18 U.S.C. §1962(d) (RICO conspiracy), and 18 U.S.C. §956 (conspiring to commit a murder abroad). Sentences included life terms for §1959 and §1962(d) and concurrent 20-year terms for §956.
- Appellants argued this court’s 2010 decision should be overruled based on Morrison (presumption against extraterritoriality); they also challenged the §956 convictions arguing they were not “within the jurisdiction of the United States” because they conspired while physically in Mexico.
- The government relied on Bowman and related precedent to justify extraterritorial punishment for criminal statutes with sufficient U.S. links; the court rejected overruling Leija-Sanchez and affirmed §1959 convictions but reduced the §1962(d) sentences to 20 years because the government failed to support life sentences under RICO conspiracy.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §1959 applies extraterritorially to murders arranged in Mexico by a U.S.-based racketeering enterprise | U.S.: §1959 applies because the murder was arranged/paid from U.S. and protected an enterprise affecting U.S. commerce; Bowman distinguishes criminal statutes from civil presumption | Defendants: Morrison requires presumption against extraterritoriality, so §1959 should not reach foreign murders | Court: Morrison does not undermine Bowman or Leija-Sanchez; affirmed that §1959 can apply given sufficient U.S. links |
| Meaning of “within the jurisdiction of the United States” in §956 | U.S.: Means regulatory/prescriptive jurisdiction (not strictly territorial) so §956 applies | Defendants: Means territorial U.S. sovereignty; being physically in Mexico precludes liability under §956 | Court: Did not decide on merits—defendants forfeited by failing to object; §956 convictions stand under plain-error review |
| Whether the district court committed plain error by instructing on §956 without clarification and allowing prosecutor’s closing arguments (bullet-count) | U.S.: Instruction and argument appropriate; jury told argument is not evidence | Defendants: Instruction was improper; prosecutor improperly contradicted pathologist (bullet count) in closing | Court: No reversible error; no abuse of discretion and any dispute over bullet count was harmless |
| Whether life sentences under §1962(d) were authorized based on predicate offenses | U.S.: Life authorized because predicates included murder (state law) and §956; jury found facts supporting life predicates | Defendants: Illinois murder statute doesn’t reach out-of-state killing; §956 convictions contested; §1961 predicates don’t include §956 | Court: Government failed to defend life sentences on appeal for §1962(d); vacated those life terms and remanded to set §1962(d) sentence at 20 years (other life sentences under §1959 remain) |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Leija-Sanchez, 602 F.3d 797 (7th Cir.) (held §1959 can reach murders arranged from the U.S.)
- United States v. Bowman, 260 U.S. 94 (1922) (criminal statutes may be applied extraterritorially when consistent with law of nations)
- Morrison v. National Australia Bank Ltd., 561 U.S. 247 (2010) (reiterated presumption against extraterritoriality in civil statutes)
- Ford v. United States, 273 U.S. 593 (1927) (addressed extraterritorial reach of federal law in a different context)
- Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment, 523 U.S. 83 (1998) (observed that “jurisdiction” is a term of many meanings)
- Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284 (1973) (addresses limits on excluding impeachment and relevant evidence)
- Ray v. United States, 481 U.S. 736 (1987) (concurrent-sentence doctrine principles)
- United States v. Klebig, 600 F.3d 700 (7th Cir.) (discussed limits on prosecutor argument vs. experts)
- United States v. Amawi, 695 F.3d 457 (6th Cir.) (related discussion of extraterritorial jurisdictional concepts)
- United States v. Fernandez, 559 F.3d 303 (5th Cir.) (related to jurisdictional reach)
- United States v. Wharton, 320 F.3d 526 (5th Cir.) (related jurisdictional discussion)