United States v. Smith
454 F. App'x 686
10th Cir.2012Background
- Jonearl Smith, a Neighborhood Crips member in Wichita, was charged with RICO conspiracy (18 U.S.C. § 1962(d)) and conspiracy to distribute 50+ grams of crack cocaine (21 U.S.C. §§ 841, 846).
- Trial yielded guilty on RICO conspiracy (Count 2) and crack conspiracy (Count 28), acquittal on marijuana conspiracy (Count 29), and a mistrial on the substantive RICO count (Count 1).
- Jury instructions told the jury that proving an actual enterprise existed was unnecessary for Count 2, focusing on the conspiratorial agreement and enterprise’s impact on commerce.
- Evidence showed Smith’s involvement with the Crips, including drug dealing, initiation practices, and gang structure, with multiple coconspirators and drug transactions.
- The district court denied post-trial motions; Smith challenged jury instructions, juror misconduct, and later proceedings concerning predicate-act convictions.
- Court ultimately affirmed the convictions, addressing each challenge and holding no plain error affected substantial rights.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is an enterprise element required for RICO conspiracy under §1962(d)? | Smith contends enterprise existence is an element. | Government argues no enterprise establishment is required; focus is on agreement. | Plain-error not shown; no reversible error or prejudice established. |
| Was there sufficient evidence to convict Counts 2 and 28? | Evidence insufficient to show agreement and interdependence. | Evidence showed Crips as an association-in-fact and Smith’s knowing participation. | Evidence sufficient to sustain Count 28; enterprise and interdependence supported. |
| Was the denial of Smith’s jury-instruction requests reversible error? | Requests about buyer-seller relationship with a government agent should have been given. | Record shows there was more than buyer-seller relation; existing law supported the instructions. | Harmless error; no reversible error given broader evidence of conspiracy. |
| Was an evidentiary hearing on juror misconduct required? | Letters and emails suggest juror bias in favor of government. | Rule 606(b) precludes consideration; no actual bias proven. | No abuse of discretion; no need for evidentiary hearing. |
| Does vacatur of predicate-act convictions affect the RICO conspiracy conviction? | Vacated predicate acts undermine Count 2. | Salinas permits conspiracy conviction regardless of predicate acts; evidence independent. | Conviction affirmed; vacatur did not defeat Count 2. |
Key Cases Cited
- Salinas v. United States, 522 U.S. 52 (U.S. 1997) (RICO conspiracy can be proven without defendant committing two predicate acts)
- Boyle v. United States, 556 U.S. 938 (U.S. 2009) (Enterprise structure requirements for RICO; distinguishes §1962(c) from §371)
- United States v. Smith, 413 F.3d 1253 (10th Cir. 2005) (Dicta on enterprise existence in §1962(d) cases (not controlling))
- United States v. Riccobene, 709 F.2d 214 (3d Cir. 1983) (Entitlement of enterprise existence as an element (out-of-circuit; discussed as dicta))
- Applins, 637 F.3d 59 (2d Cir. 2011) (Second Circuit stance on enterprise requirement for §1962(d) conspiracy)
- Remmer v. United States, 347 U.S. 227 (U.S. 1954) (Presumed prejudice in juror tampering; limits on juror testimony)