United States v. Sherman Brown
15-1998
| 6th Cir. | Nov 17, 2017Background
- Six Phantom Motorcycle Club (PMC) members were tried on a multi-count indictment alleging RICO conspiracy, VICAR (violent crimes in aid of racketeering), firearms offenses (including § 924(c)), conspiracy to commit murder in aid of racketeering, and related charges; convictions were affirmed on appeal.
- Evidence included testimony about PMC’s hierarchical organization, by-laws, interstate activities (e.g., stolen motorcycle trafficking, national dues), and recorded conversations by cooperating witness Carl Miller documenting orders and planning.
- Key violent events proved at trial: (1) a September 2013 mission to take Satan’s Sidekicks’ "rags" that culminated in Sorrell shooting Leon McGee, and (2) a PMC-planned conspiracy to murder members of the rival Hell Lovers in retaliation for a PMC member’s death.
- Defendants raised sufficiency-of-the-evidence challenges to RICO conspiracy, VICAR, § 924(c), and possession counts; the court applied Jackson v. Virginia’s standard and upheld each conviction based on circumstantial and direct evidence linking defendants to enterprise activities and predicate acts.
- Several procedural and constitutional claims were rejected: (1) fair-cross-section jury venire challenge found untimely and not supported by a prima facie showing of systematic exclusion, (2) Remmer inquiry into alleged juror contact was adequate, (3) Sixth Amendment and Miranda-based suppression claims to recordings failed, and (4) Brady and evidentiary/404(b) and jury-instruction challenges were rejected.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for RICO conspiracy (18 U.S.C. § 1962(d)) | Govt: PMC was an association-in-fact enterprise with purpose, relationships, longevity, interstate effect; defendants agreed to a pattern of racketeering | Defs: Insufficient proof PMC was an enterprise, did not affect interstate commerce, or defendants did not participate in enterprise or pattern | Convictions affirmed — jury could find enterprise, interstate effect, participation, and pattern of racketeering under Boyle, H.J. Inc., and Salinas standards |
| Sufficiency for VICAR convictions (18 U.S.C. § 1959(a)) | Govt: Violent acts (McGee shooting; plot to murder Hell Lovers) were committed to maintain/increase position in PMC | Defs: Acts were not committed to maintain/increase position; insufficient purposeful link to enterprise | Affirmed — evidence supported predicate violent acts and an ‘‘animating purpose’’ to maintain/increase position in enterprise |
| § 924(c) aiding-and-abetting (advance knowledge of firearm) | Govt: Defendants had advance knowledge firearms would be present on raids; admissions and prior conduct supported § 924(c) convictions | Defs: Raid intended only to seize rags; no advance knowledge of gun use | Affirmed — evidence (recordings, statements, and prior raids) supported advance-knowledge requirement from Rosemond |
| Fair-cross-section jury venire challenge timing and proof | Defendants: Oral voir dire motion timely; showed underrepresentation of African-Americans | Govt/Chief Judge: Motion untimely under Rule 12(c) and lacked prima facie showing of systematic exclusion | Court: Rule 12(c) start of trial = jury sworn; oral motion during voir dire was timely, but defendants failed to make prima facie showing of systematic exclusion; challenge properly denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (sufficiency of the evidence standard)
- Boyle v. United States, 556 U.S. 938 (association-in-fact enterprise elements)
- Salinas v. United States, 522 U.S. 52 (RICO conspiracy agreement standard)
- H.J., Inc. v. Northwestern Bell Telephone Co., 492 U.S. 229 (pattern of racketeering: relationship plus continuity)
- Rosemond v. United States, 134 S. Ct. 1240 (§ 924(c) advance-knowledge aiding-and-abetting requirement)
- Pinkerton v. United States, 328 U.S. 640 (conspirator liability for foreseeable acts)
- Duren v. Missouri, 439 U.S. 357 (fair cross-section prima facie test)
- Remmer v. United States, 347 U.S. 227 (juror-contact inquiry requirement)
- Elonis v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2001 (threats/speech mens rea — distinguished)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (reasonableness presumption for within-Guidelines sentence)