United States v. William Frazier
878 F.3d 508
6th Cir.2017Background
- Defendants William Frazier and Christopher Odum, members of the Phantom Motorcycle Club (PMC), were tried separately and convicted: Frazier for two counts of assault with a dangerous weapon in aid of racketeering (VICAR) and one § 924(c) firearm count; Odum for conspiracy to commit murder in aid of racketeering (VICAR).
- Incident 1 (Oct. 2012, Columbus): Frazier, wearing PMC "rags," fired two shots during an altercation at a rival club’s clubhouse, wounding Zulus members; PMC leadership later coordinated damage-control to avoid retaliation.
- Incident 2 (2013): After the murder of a PMC member, PMC leadership announced a plan to retaliate against the Hell Lovers; Odum was recorded as saying he had the "green light" from leadership to target Hell Lovers.
- Indictment and investigation followed ATF/FBI searches; recordings and testimony from cooperating witness Carl Miller and other PMC members were central at trial.
- On appeal, defendants challenged sufficiency of VICAR evidence (enterprise, racketeering, crime of violence, motive), venue and vagueness under § 924(c), admissibility of co‑conspirator statements under Rule 801(d)(2)(E), and Brady/due‑process claims about an uncalled witness and undisclosed ballistic evidence.
- The Sixth Circuit affirmed, holding the evidence sufficient and rejecting the defendants’ procedural and evidentiary challenges.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of VICAR convictions (enterprise/racketeering/purpose/knowledge/crime of violence) | Gov: PMC is an association‑in‑fact enterprise engaged in racketeering; evidence shows defendants committed violent acts to maintain/increase position. | Defs: Gov failed to prove enterprise purpose, interstate commerce nexus, racketeering continuity, defendants’ knowledge of racketeering, agreement with non‑agent coconspirators, and VICAR purpose element. | Affirmed. Evidence supported an association‑in‑fact enterprise affecting interstate commerce; racketeering activity shown; no individual knowledge‑of‑racketeering requirement; Odum agreed with leadership; Frazier’s shooting could be motivated by preserving status. |
| § 924(c) venue and vagueness challenge | Gov: § 924(c) venue mirrors underlying crime venue; § 924(c) valid. | Frazier: Venue improper in E.D. Mich.; § 924(c) unconstitutionally vague after Johnson. | Affirmed. Venue proper where enterprise centered; Sixth Circuit precedent foreclosed vagueness challenge. |
| Admissibility of co‑conspirator hearsay (Rule 801(d)(2)(E)) | Gov: Statements by PMC members and recorded conversations were in furtherance of PMC conspiracies and admissible after preponderance finding. | Frazier: Statements not shown to be during/in furtherance; some recordings lacked timely objection; argues Rule 801 standard unmet. | Affirmed. District court permissibly made conditional finding and later formalized it; many recordings were unobjected to (waived); remaining challenged statements not prejudicial. |
| Due process / Brady claims (unchosen witness & late disclosure of shell casing/slug) | Frazier: Gov’s failure to call Foster and delayed disclosure of ballistic evidence deprived him of a full defense and violated Brady. | Gov: Decision not to call listed witness is permissible; grand jury transcripts referenced the evidence; court provided items during trial and defense declined to use them. | Affirmed. No suppression or prejudice: Frazier had notice and opportunity to subpoena Foster; evidence was referenced earlier and produced during trial; defense strategic choices eliminated Brady prejudice. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Vichitvongsa, 819 F.3d 260 (6th Cir.) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (Jackson standard for sufficiency of evidence)
- Boyle v. United States, 556 U.S. 938 (2009) (association‑in‑fact enterprise test)
- United States v. Concepcion, 983 F.2d 369 (2d Cir.) (VICAR elements and RICO construction)
- H.J., Inc. v. N.W. Bell Tel. Co., 492 U.S. 229 (1989) (pattern/continuity discussion in RICO context)
- Flores‑Figueroa v. United States, 556 U.S. 646 (2009) (interpretation of statutory "knowing" mens rea)
- United States v. Taylor, 814 F.3d 340 (6th Cir.) (vagueness challenge to § 924(c) rejected)
- United States v. Vinson, 606 F.2d 149 (6th Cir.) (conditional admission of coconspirator statements)
- United States v. Enright, 579 F.2d 980 (6th Cir.) (coconspirator statements and furtherance analysis)
- United States v. Rodriguez‑Moreno, 526 U.S. 275 (1999) (venue for § 924(c) follows underlying offense)
- Sedima, S.P.R.L. v. Imrex Co., 473 U.S. 479 (1985) (liberal construction of RICO for remedial purposes)