United States v. Schiro
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 8787
| 7th Cir. | 2012Background
- Long-running Chicago Outfit conspiracy case before Seventh Circuit; Calabrese and Marcello previously convicted in earlier trials for street crew activities; current indictment charged Outfit-wide conspiracies spanning 1960–2002 including murders and other racketeering acts; district court entered judgments convicting all five defendants; questions include double jeopardy, statute of limitations, evidentiary/jury-process issues, and restitution; the majority affirms in part and reverses in part, with a dissent challenging the double jeopardy result.
- Court held that the Outfit and street crews are distinct but overlapping enterprises for double jeopardy purposes given different scopes and leadership oversight; current indictment targeted Outfit-wide conspiracies, including murders, beyond earlier street crew prosecutions; the government presented evidence aimed at distinguishing the Outfit conspiracy from street crew conspiracies; the district court’s handling of jury/publicity issues and the juror removal was reviewed for harmless error; restitution was partially reversed for Doyle.
- Machinery of the trial included withdrawal defense, anonymous jurors, and challenges to voice-identification evidence; the majority found some rulings harmless and upheld most of the trial conduct, while the dissent criticized the double jeopardy reasoning and would reverse Calabrese and Marcello entirely on that ground.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Double jeopardy over two conspiracies | Calabrese/Marcello: same enterprise, overlapping acts | Outfit vs street crews are separate enterprises | Majority: no DJ violation; Dissent: yes DJ violation |
| Statute of limitations for the Outfit conspiracy | Conspiracy continued into the statutory period through ongoing acts | Conspiracy ends when predicate acts stop; withdrawal/continuation disputed | Majority: conspiracy continued into period; limited retroactivity of acts permitted; not time-barred on the whole |
| Evidentiary/jury-process issues (eye/ear witness, voir dire) | Defense challenges to expert voice ID and juror exposure to publicity | Judge erred in excluding testimony and in voir dire decisions | Majority: some evidentiary/voir dire rulings harmless; no reversal; dissent would have more scrutiny on publicity-related matters |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Calabrese, 490 F.3d 575 (7th Cir. 2007) (double jeopardy in layered conspiracy prosecutions; prior district court rulings on DJ overlap)
- United States v. Pizzonia, 577 F.3d 455 (2d Cir. 2009) (discussion of overlapping conspiracies and enterprise vs. component structure)
- United States v. Langella, 804 F.2d 185 (2d Cir. 1986) (relationship between subordinate crews and overarching enterprise)
- United States v. DeCologero, 364 F.3d 12 (1st Cir. 2004) (enterprise vs. individual components; conspiracy scope)
- Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (1932) (elements test for offenses; separate offenses require separate proof)
- United States v. Dixon, 509 U.S. 688 (1993) (same elements vs. different offenses; double jeopardy framework)
- Remmer v. United States, 347 U.S. 227 (1954) (preservation of fair trial when juror exposure to publicity)
- Richardson v. United States, 526 U.S. 813 (1999) (unanimity requirements in multi-element verdicts)
- United States v. Ciancaglini, 858 F.2d 923 (3d Cir. 1988) (overlap within Philadelphia crime families; enterprise concept)