378 F. Supp. 3d 563
E.D. Mich.2019Background
- Indictment: Second superseding indictment charges Carlo Wilson (Group Two, death-eligible) with RICO-related offenses including racketeering conspiracy (18 U.S.C. §1962(d)), two VICAR murders, related §924(c)/§924(j) firearm counts, and two VICAR assaults; Government seeks death penalty.
- Alleged enterprise: "6 Mile Chedda Grove" gang in Detroit that trafficked narcotics across multiple states and used violence to maintain territory, status, and profits.
- Procedural posture: Wilson filed nine motions to dismiss asserting constitutional, statutory, and multiplicity defects; Government opposed; Court resolved motions on briefs and denied all.
- Core disputed statutes: VICAR (18 U.S.C. §1959) (violent crimes in aid of racketeering) and the §924(c) firearm enhancement/prosecution provisions.
- Primary defenses raised by Wilson: facial and as-applied Commerce Clause challenge to VICAR; insufficiency/lack of specificity of VICAR predicate allegations (murder/assault state predicates); categorical mismatch between Michigan felonious assault and VICAR §924(c) crime-of-violence requirement; multiplicity and §924(c) stacking challenges.
- Court posture on evidence: the sufficiency of proof of interstate commerce nexus and of multiple firearm uses is a merits/trial issue, not resolved on a pretrial motion to dismiss.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Constitutionality of VICAR under Commerce Clause | Govt: Congress rationally could conclude reputation-enhancing gang violence affects interstate enterprise activities | Wilson: VICAR exceeds Commerce Clause because it criminalizes purely intrastate, noneconomic violent acts with only an attenuated nexus to interstate commerce | Denied: facial challenge rejected; rational-basis and jurisdictional element sustain VICAR; as-applied attack is essentially evidentiary and premature |
| Specificity / elements for VICAR murder counts | Govt: indictment need only track VICAR elements; not required to plead full elements of underlying state murder statute | Wilson: counts fail to specify which subsection of Mich. Comp. Laws §750.316 is alleged and omit mens rea, depriving notice | Denied: indictment tracks VICAR and alleges essential VICAR elements; underlying state elements must be proved at trial but need not be pleaded in detail in VICAR count |
| Predicate crime mismatch: Michigan felonious assault vs. VICAR assault with dangerous weapon | Govt: generic federal definition governs; if federal definition conduct is criminalized by state statute, it can serve as VICAR predicate | Wilson: Mich. §750.82 criminalizes apprehension-type assaults lacking intent to injure, so it is overbroad and categorically mismatches VICAR | Denied: §750.82 encompasses the generic VICAR assault-with-weapon conduct (attempted/battery-type with intent to injure); overbreadth does not bar use as predicate where state statute also criminalizes the federal-generic conduct |
| Whether VICAR predicate qualifies as §924(c) "crime of violence" | Govt: VICAR assault-with-dangerous-weapon is a federal predicate that by its elements involves threatened/attempted use of physical force | Wilson: Michigan felonious assault can be committed without force (only apprehension), so it is not a §924(c)(3)(A) crime of violence | Denied: §924(c) predicate is the federal VICAR offense (assault with dangerous weapon), which meets the elements clause; even under Michigan law the dangerous-weapon variant involves attempted/threatened force and qualifies |
| §924(c) "except" clause / stacking where §924(j) applies | Govt: multiple §924(c) convictions may stand where separate predicate facts or uses of firearm exist | Wilson: single act of firing cannot be stacked into multiple §924(c) punishments; life sentence under §924(j) would subsume other §924(c) minima | Denied: sentencing stacking is permissible where multiple distinct §924(c) violations are supported; whether multiple uses occurred is a factual/trial question (Jackson requires proof of multiple uses/choices) |
| Multiplicity of VICAR counts (multiple victims/same episode) | Wilson: VICAR defines a single offense with alternative means; multiple VICAR counts based on same act are multiplicitous and violate Double Jeopardy | Govt: VICAR subsections define distinct offenses with different elements; counts involve different victims and elements | Denied: each VICAR subsection (murder v. assault) sets distinct elements and punishments; counts involve different victims and separate elements so not multiplicitous |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (statute regulating local activity must be shown to substantially affect interstate commerce)
- United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598 (limitations on Commerce Clause reach for noneconomic criminal conduct)
- Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (rational-basis aggregation test under Commerce Clause)
- Salerno v. United States, 481 U.S. 739 (standard for facial constitutional challenges)
- Hamling v. United States, 418 U.S. 87 (indictment must allege elements and give fair notice)
- United States v. Riddle, 249 F.3d 529 (VICAR jurisdictional element; de minimis interstate commerce connection may suffice where enterprise engages in economic activity)
- United States v. Umana, 750 F.3d 320 (Congress could rationally find reputation-enhancing violence affects interstate racketeering enterprise)
- Johnson v. United States, 559 U.S. 133 (definition of "physical force" for elements clause)
- United States v. Harris, 853 F.3d 318 (Michigan felonious assault incorporates assault-with-weapon conduct; crime-of-violence analysis)
- United States v. Jackson, 918 F.3d 467 (§924(c) requires proof of more than one use/carry/possession to support multiple convictions)