United States v. Randall
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 22052
| 10th Cir. | 2011Background
- Randall, Jr. was convicted of one count of conspiracy to commit a RICO violation (Count 2) in a Wichita, Kansas case involving Crips gang activity.
- He was part of the Insane Crips at times, with alleged drug distribution for the gang between 1991 and 2007.
- Trial evidence showed Randall's drug purchases 2005–2007 and a video-recorded attempted buy with a confidential informant.
- A district court sentenced Randall to 46 months’ imprisonment after the jury convicted Count 2; Randall challenged the jury instructions on appeal.
- Randall argued three instructional errors: withdrawal from conspiracy, unanimity on predicate acts, and cumulative error affecting fair trial.
- The Tenth Circuit affirmed Randall’s conviction, addressing each claimed error and finding no reversible error.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Withdrawal instruction abuse | Randall | Randall | No reversible error; instruction not abused |
| Unanimity on predicate acts | Randall | Randall | No plain error; unanimity as to types of acts suffices |
| Cumulative error | Randall | Randall | No cumulative error; no fair-trial deprivation |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Turner, 553 F.3d 1337 (10th Cir. 2009) (abuse of discretion standard for defense instructions)
- United States v. Visinaiz, 428 F.3d 1300 (10th Cir. 2005) (entitlement to jury instruction on defense theory)
- United States v. Al-Rekabi, 454 F.3d 1113 (10th Cir. 2006) (minimum standard for defense evidence)
- Bailey v. United States, 444 U.S. 394 (1980) (requires evidence supporting an affirmative defense)
- United States v. Russell, 963 F.2d 1320 (10th Cir. 1992) (conspirator liability for fellow acts)
- Pinkerton v. United States, 328 U.S. 645 (1946) (conspiracy liability extends to coconspirators)
- Hyde v. United States, 225 U.S. 347 (1912) (conspiracy liability and withdrawal concepts)
- United States v. Powell, 982 F.2d 1422 (10th Cir. 1992) (withdrawal requires affirmative communication)
- United States v. Hughes, 191 F.3d 1317 (10th Cir. 1999) (mere cessation is insufficient for withdrawal)
- Salinas v. United States, 522 U.S. 52 (1997) (§1962(d) covers acts by others; no need to prove two acts personally)
- United States v. Smith, 413 F.3d 1253 (10th Cir. 2005) (no overt act requirement for §1962(d) conviction (abrogated on other grounds))
- United States v. Applins, 637 F.3d 59 (2d Cir. 2011) (unanimity on predicate acts not required; types suffice)
- United States v. Glecier, 923 F.2d 496 (7th Cir. 1991) (§1962(d) offense does not require specific predicate acts)