United States v. Pierce
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 7717
| 2d Cir. | 2015Background
- Pierce, Colon, and Meregildo, members of CAC, were convicted at trial of racketeering, narcotics, murder, and firearms offenses in SDNY.
- CAC operated in Melrose-Jackson Houses selling crack, heroin, and marijuana; Harrison founded CAC and was murdered in 2010.
- Meregildo and Colon allegedly led CAC narcotics operations after Harrison’s death; Pierce sold drugs within CAC network.
- Government presented cooperating witnesses, physical evidence, and social media content (rap video, tattoos) linking defendants to CAC.
- Jury asked for guidance on Count Fifteen; court instructed that CAC membership was not required for narcotics conspiracy.
- Pierce’s sentence included two § 924(c) convictions; this appeal leads to remand for resentence under rule of lenity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for Meregildo and Colon | CAC was an RICO enterprise; conspiracies proven via witnesses and acts. | Evidence shows only isolated violence, not an enterprise or conspiracy. | Sufficient evidence for enterprise and conspiracies; jury could find mutuality and intent. |
| Admissibility of rap video and tattoos | Video and tattoos show motive/association with CAC. | Violates First Amendment and prejudices; lyrics are art. | Admissible; probative value not outweighed by prejudice; not used as speech basis. |
| Constitutionality of the Stored Communications Act as applied to Colon | SCA denies access to Facebook content; violates due process and confrontation rights. | Colon obtained Parsons content and could have exculpatory material; injury shown. | No injury shown; SCA challenge rejected as Colon failed to prove harm. |
| Uncalled witness instruction and jury instructions on Count Fifteen | Uncalled witness instruction unfairly limits inference; constructive amendment risk. | Missing witness instruction required; potential prejudice from broad supplement. | Uncalled witness instruction not abusive; supplemental charge not a constructive amendment; not prejudicial. |
| Pierce’s § 924(c) sentencing and rule of lenity | Discharge first and possession second; constitutes proper sequencing. | Statute ambiguous; lenity requires reordering to 5-year then 25-year terms. | Remand required; reorder to possession-first (5 years) then discharge (25 years) for 30-year minimum. |
Key Cases Cited
- Boyle v. United States, 556 U.S. 938 (2009) (association-in-fact enterprise lacks hierarchical structure requirement)
- H.J. Inc. v. Northwest Bell Tel. Co., 492 U.S. 229 (1989) (continuity and closed/open-ended concepts for enterprise proof)
- United States v. Turkette, 452 U.S. 576 (1981) (enterprise elements can coalesce with pattern of activity)
- United States v. Burden, 600 F.3d 204 (2d Cir. 2010) (pattern evidence supports enterprise inference)
- United States v. Desinor, 525 F.3d 193 (2d Cir. 2008) (motive evidence supports conspiracy findings)
- Deal v. United States, 508 U.S. 129 (1993) (second/subsequent § 924(c) convictions; sentencing guidance)
- United States v. Milstein, 401 F.3d 53 (2d Cir. 2005) (flexibility in proof; general indictment framing allowed)