N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lle e , v. R ONDALE YOUNG, AKA De vil, AKA P-Grum p, De fe nda

n t-Appe l la

nt. No. 15-50158

D.C . No. 2:10-c r-00923-SJO-31
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia S. Jam e s Ote ro, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d

July 10, 2017 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : PREGER SON, ** REINHAR DT, a nd WARD LAW , C irc uit Judge s .



# FIL ED DEC 27 2017 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

** Prior to his de a th, JudgePre ge rson fully pa rtic ipate d in this c a se and form a lly c onc urre d in this disposition a fte r de libe rations we re c om ple t e .On August 2, 2009, a lle g e d Pue blo B i shops B loods ga ng m e m be r Je sse M c W a yne wa s kille d during a

drive -by shooting in the

Pue blo De l R io Housing Proje c ts in South Los Ange le s . Whe n a re sponding offic e r arrive d at the sc e ne , he he ard som e one in the c rowd sa y , “ It wa s 38.” Just forty

m inute s la

te r, at a c arwa sh in ne arby 38th Stre e t ga

ng te rritory , two m e n e xite d a bla c k C hry sle r and shot a nd kille d Franc isc o C orne lio. De te c tive s suspe c te d tha t R onda le Young wa s involve d in the shooting be c a

use vide o surve illa

nc e and e y e witne ss ide n tific a tions indic a te d that the ve hic le use d in the c a rwa sh shooting be longe d to He le n Young, Ro nda le ’ s
m othe r, and he wa s c ha

rge d a nd c onvic te d. R onda le Young now a

p pe a ls his jury tria l c onvic tions for c onspira c y to viola te the R a c ke te e r Influe nc e d and C orrupt Pra c tic e s Ac t (R IC O), c onspira toria l
and substa

ntive m urde r unde r the Viole nt C rim e s in Aid of Ra c ke te e ring (VIC AR ) sta tute , a nd use of a fire arm

in furthe ranc e of a

c rim e of viole n c e . B e c a

use se ve ra l inc u lpatory

sta t e m e nts we re a dm itte d into e vide nc e in viola tion of Miranda and the C onfronta

tion C la use , a n d the distric t c ourt e rrone o u sly instruc te d the jury on the
e le m e nts of R

IC O, we va c a te the c onvic tions a nd re m and. 1. Young a

rgue s tha t the distric t c ourt e rre d in a d m itting he a

rsay sta te m e nts m a de by a lle ge d Pue blo B ishops ga ng m e m be r Shane Tre se va

nt, in viola tion of theC onfronta

tion C la use . During tria l, De te c tive C a lz a dilla s te stifie d
2that

Tre se va nt told a de te c tive tha

t he sa w Young a

nd Anthony

Ga b o ure l ge t into Young’ s m othe r’ s ve h i c le shortly a fte r Je sse M c W ayne wa s shot. De te c t ive C a lz a dilla s a lso te stifie d tha t Tre se va nt told a de t e c tive tha

t Ga boure l re t urne d to the Pue blo De l R io Housing Proje c ts a bout a n hour la te r an d sa id the y

“ got one .” W he n the prose c utor a s ke d De te c tive C a lz a dilla s wha t he unde rstood “ got one ” to
m e an ba se d on his training a nd e xpe rie nc e with ga

ngs, De te c tive C a l z a dilla s re plie d , “ That the y

ha d shot som e body

in re t a lia tion.” Ne ithe r Ga

boure l nor Tre se va

nt te stifie d at tria l. The sta te m e nts we re
a dm itte d ove r de fe nse c ounse l’ s he arsay and C onfronta

tion C la u s e obje c t ions. The gove rnm e nt c onc e de s tha t the distric t c o urt e rre d in a dm itting the sta te m e nts, but
argue s tha

t the e rror wa s ha

rm le ss. W e disa gre e . The gove rnm e n t be ars the burde n of showing tha t a C o nfronta

tion C la use e rror wa s ha

rm le ss be y ond a

re a sona ble doubt
. C

h apman v . C

alifornia , 386 U.S. 18, 24 (1967)
. In e va luating this issue , we c onside r “ the im p orta nc e of the witne s s’ [s] te stim ony to the prose c ution’ s c a se , whe the r the te stim ony wa s c um ulat ive , . . . a

nd, of c ourse , the ove ra ll stre ngth of theprose c ution’ s c a se [.] ” Se e Unite d State

s v . Esparza , 791 F.3d 1067, 1074 (9th C ir. 2015) (quoting De law arev . Van Arsdall , 475 U.S. 673, 684 (1986)). “ Eve n whe n

the gove rnm e nt’ s c a se is ‘ strong,’ a C onfronta

tion C la use viola tion is not ha

rm le ss
3whe re the e rrone ously a dm itte d e vide nc e c o uld ha

ve ‘ signific antly

a l te re d the
e vide ntia ry pic ture .’ ” Id. (quoting Unite d State s v . Bustamante

, 687 F.3d 1190, 1195 (9th C ir. 2012)). He re , the re wa s lim ite d e vide nc e of Young’ s involve m e nt in theshooting. B e side s the Tre se va

nt he arsa y sta te m e nts, the othe r e vide n c e tha t a lle ge dly

pla c e d Young a t the sc e ne of the c rim e inc lude d (1) Young’ s m othe r’ s sta te m e nt to polic e that he r son ha d

he r c ar on the m orning of them urde r; (2) Young’ s inc ulpa tory sta te m e nts to polic e , whic h, a s disc usse d be low, we re obta i ne d in viola tion of Miranda ; a

nd (3) vide o surve i lla

nc e tha t showe d Young’ s m othe r’ s c ar (though not Young) a t the c rim e sc e ne . Ey e witne sse s at the c rim e sc e ne did not visua lly ide n tify Young, a nd Ga boure l a dm itte d tha

t he and thre e othe rs (inc l uding Tre se v an t) we re in the c ar on the da y of the m

urde r, but he did not im

plic a te Young. The e vide nc e of Young’ s ga ng involve m e nt wa s a lso m inim a l. The m otive for the shooting, a

n e sse ntia l e l e m e nt unde r VIC A R , wa s pre d om ina ntly
e sta blishe d by De t e c tive C a lz a d illa s’ s te stim ony tha t the “ got one ” re m ark indic a te d a re ta lia

tory , ga ng-re late d m otive . The only othe r e vide nc e dire c tly linking Young to ga

ng-a ffilia te d c onduc t we re his boa sts to a ja il inform ant, whic h

4a t be st a

m biguously tie Young to the

ga n g a nd c ould inste a d indic at e tha t Young ha d disa vowe d “ putting in work”

for the ga

ng by the tim e of the offe nse . Elim inating Tre se va

n t’ s he arsay

sta te m e nts unde rm ine s the like lihood tha t the j ury would ha ve found tha

t Young wa s pre se nt in the c ar whe n the m urde r oc c urre d or tha

t Young ha d a

ga ng-re late d m otive for pa

rtic i pating. Howe ve r, we ne e d not de c i de whe the r the C onfronta tion C la use viola t ion wa s ha

rm le ss on its own be c a use we c onc lude tha

t the C onfronta

tion C la use an d Miranda viola

t ions
we re c olle c tive ly

pre judic ia l. 2. Young a

rgue s tha t de te c tive s e nga ge d in a de libe ra te two-ste p inte rrogation proc e s s whe n the y que stione d him

on Se pte m

b e r 22, 2009, in viola tion of Miranda v . Arizona , 384 U.S. 436 (1966), a nd Missouri v . Se ibe rt , 542 U.S. 600 (2004). A “ de libe ra te two-ste p inte rrogat ion” oc c urs whe n a n offic e r de libe ra te ly
wa its until the

suspe c t ha s c onfe sse d, the n give s Miranda warnings a nd ha s the suspe c t re pe a t his c onfe ssion. Id. at 1158–60. Unde r S e ibe rt , if offic e rs de libe ra t e ly

e m ploy the two-ste p te c h nique , a ny post-wa

rning sta t e m e nt m ust be suppre sse d unle ss suffic i e nt c urative m e a sure s are ta ke n to e nsure tha

t the
m idstre am Miranda warnings a re ge nuine ly

unde rstood. Re

y e s v . Le w is , 833 F.3d 1001, 1029 (9th C ir. 2015). C ura tive m e a sure s m ay inc lude “ a

substa n t ia l bre ak in
5tim e and c irc um sta n c e s be twe e n the pre -wa

rning sta te m e nt a nd the Miranda
warning,” or “ an a dditiona l wa rning tha t e xpla ins the like ly

ina dm issibility

of the pre -wa rning c ustodia l sta

te m e nt.” Se i be rt , 542 U.S. a t 622 (Ke nne dy , J.,
c onc urring). The re c ord shows tha

t de te c tive s de libe ra te ly

e nga ge d in a two-ste p inte rrogation. De te c tive s inte rrogate d Young a t the polic e sta

t ion for a t le a st twe nty m inute s without providing a ny Miranda wa

rnings. Only a

fte r Young
c onfe s se d tha

t he drove the ve hic le linke d to the shooting (his m

othe r’ s c ar) did the de te c tive s fina lly

give him Miranda warnings. Although the pre -wa rning pa rt of the i nte rvie w wa s not re c orde d, Young’ s post-wa rning sta te m e nts a ppe ar to be la rge ly re pe titive of his pre -wa rning sta te m e nts. For e xam

ple , in re sponse to a que stion a

bout who wa s in the c ar with him , Young sa id, “ I a lre a dy told y ou tha

t . . . .” This sugge sts tha

t the de te c tive s we re a sking substa ntive que stions a

bout the inve stiga tion be fore the re c ording de vic e wa s turne d on a n d be fore the y

gave the Miranda warnings. M ore ove r, the de te c tive s did not ta ke any c ura tive m e a sure s . The y gave Young only

a short bre ak be t

we e n the pre - a

nd post-wa

rning inte rrogations. The re is no e vide nc e tha

t the de te c tive s told Young tha t his prior sta

t e m e nts would like ly be ina dm issible . The post-wa rning inte rrogation oc c urre d in the sa m e loc ation a s
6the p re -warning inte rrogat ion, a nd the sa m e de te c tive s c arrie d out both inte rrogations. W e re je c t the gove rnm e nt’ s c onte ntion tha t the de te c tive s de la

y e d giving the Miranda warnings so tha t the y c ould build ra

pport with Young a

nd ge t

“ biogra phic a l” inform a tion. Thepolic e arre s te d Young during his truc k route and transporte d him

to the polic e sta

tion to beque stione d a

bout the m

urde r. B y that tim e , De te c tive C a lz a dilla s kne w tha t (1) the c ar a t the sc e ne m at c he d Young’ s
m othe r’ s c a

r; (2) Young’ s m othe r sa id tha t only she and he r son drove the c ar and that he wa s driving it on the

m orning of theshooting; a nd (3) at le a s t one witne ss (Tre se va nt) ha d ide ntifie d Young a s be ing involve d. The de te c t ive s ha d no e xc use to de la y giving the Miranda w arnings whe n the y inte rvie w e d Young, one of the fe w suspe c ts the y

ha d at tha

t point in the inve stiga

t ion. C f. Re y e s , 833 F.3d a

t 1031. 3. Young a

rgue s tha t the distric t c ourt m i sinstruc te d the jury on the
e le m e nts of R

IC O, 18 U.S.C . § 1962(d), a nd VIC AR , 18 U.S.C . § 1959(a )(1), (5). He re , Young obje c te d to the R IC O jury instruc tion but did not spe c i fy the grounds for his obje c tion, a

nd Young did not obje c t to theVIC AR instruc tion. W e the re fore re vie whis c la im for pla in e rror. Palme r v . Hoffman , 318 U.S. 109, 119 (1943).
7Young a rgue s tha t the R IC O instruc tion did not ac c ura te ly sta te the
c ulpa bility re quire d for a

c rim ina l c onvic tion unde r R IC O. W e a gre e . The distric t
c ourt instruc te d the jury

tha t the gove rnm e nt m

ust prove tha

t Young “ c onspire d
and a gre e d” tha

t he “ or a c o-c onspira

tor, would c onduc t or pa

rtic ipate , e i the r dire c tly or indire c t ly , the c onduc t of the a ffa irs of the e nte rprise through a patte rn of ra c ke te e ring a c t ivity .” The distric t c ourt’ s instruc tions obsc ure the e le m e nts of the c rim e be c a

use the y do not e xpla in wha t the de fe nda

nt, not a c o-c onspira

tor,
ne e de d to a gre e to do in orde r to be found c rim ina lly c ulpa ble a s a c onspira tor. A de fe nda n t is guilty

of c onspira c y

to viola te R IC O only

if the e vide nc e shows tha t the d e fe nda

nt knowingly

and pe rsona lly

“ a gre e d to fa c ilita

te a sc he m e whic h inc l ude s the ope ration or m ana ge m e nt of a R IC O e nte rprise .” Se e Unite d State s v . Fe rnande z , 388 F.3d 1199, 1230 (9th C i r. 2004) (inte rna l quota tion m arks
om i tte d). B e c a

use the jury

instruc tions a

re c ontra ry to Fe rnande

z , the y are pla inly
e rrone ous. W e disa gre e , howe ve r, with Young’ s a rgum e nt tha

t the distric t c ourt e rre d

in instruc ting thejury

on the m otive e le m e nt unde r VIC AR . The VIC AR offe n se re quire s a m urde r to ha

ve be e n c om

m itte d “ for the purpose of ga ining e ntra n c e to
or m a inta ining or inc re a s ing position in a n e nte rprise e nga ge d in ra c ke te e ring
a c tivity . . . .” 18 U.S.C . § 1959. Im ple m e nting our de c ision in Unite d State s v . 8Bank

s , 514 F.3d 959, 969 (2008), the distric t c ourt instruc t e d the jury tha t the gove rnm e nt m

ust prove tha

t e nha nc ing Young’ s sta

tus in thee n te rprise wa s a

“ substa n tia l purpose ” for the m

urde rs. Young a

rgue s tha t Burrage v . Unite d State s , 134 S. C t. 881 (2014), a c a s e de c ide d a fte r Young’ s tria l, ove rrule s B ank s and should ha

ve re quire d

the gove rnm e nt to prove that Young’ s m otive to e nha nc e his sta t us wa s a “ but for” c a

u se of the m

urde rs. W ithout de c iding thesc ope of Burrage or its a

pplic a bility to the m otive e le m e nt in VIC AR , we c onc lude tha t the distric t c o urt’ s instruc t ion wa s not pla inly e rrone o u s be c a

use Burrage ’ s inte rpre tation of thec a

usation e le m e nt in theC ontrolle d Substa nc e s Ac t is not obviously

a pplic a ble in the VIC AR

c onte xt. 4. C olle c t ive ly , the C onfronta tion C la use , Miranda viola

tions, a n d the
e rrone ous jury

instruc tions we re not ha

rm l e ss. W ithout the

Tre se va n t he arsay sta te m e nt a nd Young’ s sta

te m e nt tha

t he wa s driving his m

o the r’ s c ar ne ar the
c arwa sh a t the tim e of the shooting, the gove rnm e nt’ s c a se wa s we a k. Young’ s
m othe r’ s sta

te m e n t tha

t he r son ha d the c ar on the m orning of them urde r doe s not pre c lude the possibility

tha t Young le nt the c ar to a

nothe r pe rson a

n d doe s not de finitive ly

pla c e Young a

t the sc e ne of the c rim e . Additionally , Anthony Ga boure l a dm itte d to be ing in them urde r ve hic le and na

m e d his c om

pa nions (inc luding Tre se va

nt), none of whom

wa s Young.
9Nor is the e rror in the R IC O jury instruc tion ha

rm le ss be c a

use , at tria l, Young he avily

c onte ste d the gove rnm e nt’ s a sse rtion tha t Young ha d pe rsona lly
a gre e d to fa c ilita

te a ra c k e te e ring sc he m e . Young’ s c ounse l pointe d to a c om ple te
a bse nc e of e v ide nc e tha

t Young ha d a

ny c onne c tion with the

Pue blo B ishop B loods’ s a c tua l g a

ng a c tivity , a

nd re c ordings c a

pture d Young sa

y ing tha t he ha d

“ le arne d a le sson” and ha d “ stoppe d ha nging out”with the ga

ng. B e c a use we c annot “ c onc lude be y ond a re a sona ble doubt tha

t the jury ve rdic t would ha

ve be e n the s am e a

bse n t the e rror,” N

e de r v . Unite d State

s , 527 U.S. 1, 17 (1999), the
e rrone ous RIC O instruc t ion wa s not ha rm le ss. Abse nt the e rrone ously

a dm itte d e vide nc e , the jury would ha ve ha d no
e vide nc e tha

t c ontra ve n e d Ga boure l’ s a c c ount. B e c a

use we c a nnot be c e rta in

“ be y o nd a re a s ona ble doubt tha

t the e rror[s] c om

pla ine d of did not c ontributeto the v e rdic t obta ine d,” C

hapman , 386 U.S. a

t 24, we va c a te Young’ s c o nvic tions
and re m and for a

ne w tria l. V ACAT E D AND RE M ANDE D.

10