United States v. White
19-3313 (L)
2d Cir.Aug 3, 2021Background
- Michael White was charged in a superseding indictment with four counts: Count One (RICO conspiracy as to MBG), Count Two (RICO conspiracy as to YGz), Count Four (VCAR—a 2012 subway shooting tied to YGz), and Count Eleven (§ 924(c) firearms in furtherance of Count Two and Count Four).
- A jury convicted White on all counts; the district court granted a Rule 29 judgment of acquittal only as to Count One (MBG RICO conspiracy) and denied acquittal on Counts Two, Four, and Eleven.
- The government appealed the acquittal on Count One; White cross-appealed the denials on Counts Two, Four, and Eleven and challenged Count Eleven as time‑barred.
- Trial evidence (cooperating witnesses, tattoos/social‑media, shared drug supply, shared stash/cooking locations, and testimony about guns bought for members) tied defendants to two overlapping gangs (MBG and YGz) that trafficked drugs and committed violence against rivals.
- The district court had found MBG lacked business‑like structure (hierarchy, induction, rules) and that some violent acts were attributable to YGz, not MBG; the Second Circuit reversed the acquittal for Count One, explaining enterprise structure is not required and the evidence sufficed to support a RICO‑conspiracy verdict.
- The Second Circuit affirmed the denials of acquittal on Counts Two, Four, and Eleven, and held Count Eleven was not time‑barred because the superseding indictment related back to the original indictment; remanded for resentencing on Count One.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for Count One (RICO conspiracy re: MBG) | Government: evidence showed agreement to form/operate an enterprise (territory, tattoos, shared drug supply, guns, coordinated violence). | White: evidence insufficient; MBG lacked enterprise features and activities were attributable to YGz. | Reversed district court: acquittal vacated; jury verdict reinstated. Enterprise need not have formal structure; sufficient evidence of association and common criminal objectives. |
| Sufficiency of evidence for Count Two (YGz RICO conspiracy) | Government: tattoos, hand signs, social media, shared drug dealing and violence show YGz enterprise and White’s knowing participation. | White: government failed to prove existence of YGz or his knowing agreement. | Affirmed conviction: evidence supported that YGz functioned as an association‑in‑fact and White knowingly participated. |
| Sufficiency of evidence for Count Four (VCAR—the subway shooting) | Government: witness testimony showed shootings advanced gang status; members expected to commit violence to gain rank (e.g., “Big Gun”), supporting intent to further enterprise. | White: even if he shot, it was not shown he acted to advance or maintain status in the enterprise. | Affirmed conviction: jury could infer the shooting was committed to maintain/advance status in YGz; VCAR intent satisfied. |
| Timeliness of Count Eleven (§ 924(c)) | Government: superseding indictment related back to original indictment; Count Eleven charged same § 924(c) offense and did not materially broaden charges. | White: Count Eleven materially amended Count Eight and required litigating new predicate (VCAR) making it time‑barred. | Affirmed: Count Eleven relates back; addition of Count Four as an additional predicate did not materially broaden charges and notice was adequate; also Count Four remains a valid § 924(c) predicate. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Applins, 637 F.3d 59 (2d Cir. 2011) (RICO conspiracy centers on agreement; proving an enterprise is not an element of the conspiracy).
- United States v. Delgado, 972 F.3d 63 (2d Cir. 2020) (government need not establish existence of an enterprise to prove RICO conspiracy).
- Boyle v. United States, 556 U.S. 938 (2009) (broad definition of association‑in‑fact enterprise; formal structure not required).
- United States v. Turkette, 452 U.S. 576 (1981) (enterprise defined as a group associated for a common purpose whose associates function as a continuing unit).
- United States v. Jackson, 335 F.3d 170 (2d Cir. 2003) (de novo review of Rule 29; apply same standard as district court and view evidence in government’s favor).
- United States v. Guadagna, 183 F.3d 122 (2d Cir. 1999) (review requires deference to jury on weight and reasonable inferences).
- United States v. Coonan, 938 F.2d 1553 (2d Cir. 1991) (proof of association‑in‑fact often shown by what the group does rather than formal structure).
- United States v. Pimentel, 346 F.3d 285 (2d Cir. 2003) (VCAR can prosecute violent crimes intended to maintain or increase position in an enterprise).
- United States v. Burden, 600 F.3d 204 (2d Cir. 2010) (intent for VCAR may be inferred from expectations of violence tied to enterprise membership).
- United States v. Florez, 447 F.3d 145 (2d Cir. 2006) (choosing among permissible competing inferences is the jury’s role).
- United States v. Salmonese, 352 F.3d 608 (2d Cir. 2003) (superseding indictment relates back to original if it does not materially broaden or substantially amend the charges).