T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on a nd i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by 9th C i r . R . 36- 3. NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T UN I T E D S T AT E S OF AME R I C A, P l ai nt i ff

- A pp el l ee , v. R O B E R T K A IA L A U , II I, D e f

e n d a n t - A p p e lla n t. N o. 09- 10042 D . C t . N o. 1: 07 -c r- 00 10 8-D A E -1

ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt

f o rth e D is tr ic t o f

H a w a ii D a vi d A . E z r a , D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng A r gue d a nd S ubm i tt e d F e brua ry 11, 2010

H o n o lu lu , H a w a ii B efo re: F A R R IS , D . W . N E L S O N , an d B E A , C i rcu i tJu d g es. A ppe l l a ntR obe r tK a i a l a u I I I ( “ K a i a l a u” ) appe a l s hi s c onvi c t i on on f our c o u n ts o f c o m m ittin g v io le n t c r im e s in a id o f r a c k e te e r in g a c tiv ity ( “V I C A R ” ) , in v i o l a t i o n o f

1 8 U . S. C. § § 1 9 5 9 ( a ) ( 3 ) a n d 2 . W e h a v e j u r i s d i c t i o n u n d e r2 8 U . S. C. § 1 2 9 1 , a n d w e a f

f i rm. 

# FI LED FEB 24 2 010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS2 I. W e f ir s t r e je c t K a ia la u ’s a r g u m e n t th a t th e a c tio n s o f h is s e c u r ity or ga ni z a t i on w e r e i ns uf f i c i e ntt o c ons t i tut e r a c ke t e e r i ng a c t i vi ty . “ W e r e vi e w de no vo a c hal l enge t o the suff i ci encyof the evi dence. ” U ni te d State s v . T

r an , 568 F . 3 d 1 1 5 6 , 1 1 6 3 (9 th C i r. 2 0 0 9 ). “ V i ew i n g th e ev i d en ce i n th e l i g h tm o st f a v o r ab le to th e g o v e rn m e n t, w e m u s t d e te rm in e w h e th e ra n y r a tio n a l ju ry c o u ld h a v e f o u n d th e d e f

e n d a n t g u ilty o f

e a c h e le m e n t o f

th e c r im e b e y o n d a r e a s o n ab le do ub t . ” I

d. at16 13 -14 (qu ot at i on m arks om i tt ed).

“ R a c ke t e e r i ng a c t i vi ty ” i nc l ude s a ny a c ti ndi c t abl e unde r18 U . S . C . § 1955, w hi c h m a ke s i ta c r i m e t o “ c onduc t [ ] , f i na nc e [ ] , m a na ge [ ] , s upe rvi s e [ ] , di r e c t [ ] , or o w n [ ] a ll o r p a rt o f

a n ille g a l g a m b lin g b u s in e s s .” § 1 9 5 5 ( e m p h a s is a d d e d ) . P rovi di ng se curi ty s ervi ce s t o an i l l egal gam bl i ng bu si ness i s i nd i ct abl e und er§ 1 9 5 5 . See San ab ri a v. U ni ted Stat es , 437 U . S . 54, 70 n. 26 ( 1978) ( “ N um e r ous c a s e s ha ve r e c ogni z e d tha t18 U . S . C . § 1955 ( 1976 e d. ) pr os c r i be s a ny de gr e e of part i ci pat i on i n an i l l egal gam bl i ng bu si ness , exce ptpart i ci pat i on as a m er e b e tto r .” ) ; see a l

so U nt i ed Stat es v. R i eger , 9 4 2 F .2 d 2 3 0 , 2 3 4 (3 d C ir. 1 9 9 1 ) ( “[W ]e c onc l ude tha tthos e w ho a c t e d a s doorm e n or‘ c utm e n’ w e r e notm e r e be tt or s , but w e r e p a r tic ip a n ts w ith in th e p u rv ie w o f [ § 1 9 5 5 ]( b ) ( 1 ) ( ii) .” ) ; U ni ted Stat es v. Fo llin , 979 F . 2d 369, 373 ( 5th C i r . 1992) ( a f f i rm i ng c onvi c t i on unde r§ 1955 of3

defe nd antw ho “ se rved dri nk s, cook ed st ea ks for tho se i n att endance, and cl ea ned th e k itc h e n o n o c c a s io n ” ) . T he r e c or d c ont a i ns a m pl e e vi de nc e tha tK a i a l a u’ s s e c ur i ty or ga ni z a t i on p r o v id e d s e c u r ity s e rv ic e s to s e v e r a l ille g a l g a m b lin g b u s in e s s e s . T h u s , w e h o ld that , vi ew i ng the evi dence i n the l i gh tm ostfa vo rabl e t o the G ov ernm ent , a r at i on al j ury c oul d ha ve f

ound tha tK a i a l a u’ s s e c ur i ty or ga ni z a t i on c onduc t e d, f i na nc e d, m an ag ed , su p erv i sed , d i rect ed , o r o w n ed p arto f an i l l eg al g am b l i n g b u si n ess. II . W e nextre

j ec tK ai al au’ s a rgum entthatthe di stri ctcourterre d i n sever al re spec t s w hen i ti nstruct ed the j ury a nd answ er ed qu es t i on s the j ury s ub m i tt ed du ri ng del i bera t i on s. T ho ug h w e genera l l y “ re vi ew de no vo the l egal suff i ci ency of j ury i nstruct i on s, ” U

n ite d S ta te s v . Sm ith , 56 1 F . 3d 93 4, 93 8 (9th C i r. 20 09 ), “[ w ]h e n a p a r ty d o e s n o t lo d g e a s p e c if ic o b je c tio n in th e d is tr ic t c o u r t, y e t a s s e r ts error on app ea l , w e r evi ew un der our fami l i arpl ai n err or st andard, ” U ni ted Stat es v . Sant i ago , 46 6 F . 3d 80 1, 80 3 (9th C i r. 20 06 ). U nd erpl ai n err or re vi ew , “ re vers al i s d i scret i o n ary an d w i l l b e g ran t ed o n l y i f th e erro r seri o u sl y affects th e fai rn ess, i nt egri ty, or pu bl i c r eput at i on of j ud i ci al proceedi ng s. ” U ni te d State s v . T

r an , 568 F . 3d 11 56 , 11 63 (9th C i r. 20 09 ) ( i nt ernal ci t at i on s a nd qu ot at i on m arks om i tt ed).4 A. T he di s tr i c tc our tdi d notpl a i nl y e rri n I ns truc t i on N o. 25, w hi c h s t a t e d:

T he s e c ond e l e m e ntw hi c h the G ove rnm e ntm us tpr ove be y ond a r e a s onabl e doubta s t o C ount s 1 thr ough 4 i s tha tthe e n t e rp r i s e w a s e n g a g e d i n r a c k e t e e r i n g a c t i v i ty o n o ra r o u n d th e t i me o f th e v io le n t c r im e c h a r g e d in th e I n d ic tm e n t. S e c tio n 1 9 5 9 ( b ) ( 1 ) . . . de f i ne s tha t[ s i c . ] the t e rm “ r a c ke t e e r i ng a c t i vi ty ” a s the c om m i s s i on o f c e r ta in s ta te a n d f

e d e r a l c r im e s in c lu d in g v io la tio n s o f 1 8 U .S .C . § 1 9 5 5 , w h i ch rel at es t o th e p ro h i b i t i o n o f i l l eg al g am b l i n g b u si n esses.

T he el em ent s f

or a vi ol at i on of 18 U . S . C . § 1 95 5 are as f o llo w s : 1) the de f

e nda ntc onduc t e d, f

i na nc e d, m a na ge d, s u p e rv is e d , d ir e c te d , o ro w n e d a n ille g a l g a m b lin g b u s in e s s . . . ;

2) the bus i ne s s i nvol ve d f i ve orm or e pe r s ons w ho c onduc t e d, f

i na nc e d, m a na ge d, s upe rvi s e d, di r e c t e d, orow ne d a l l or pa r tof the bus i ne s s ; a nd 3) the bus i ne s s ha d be e n i n s ubs t a nt i a l l yc ont i nuous ope r a t i on by f

i ve orm or e pe r s ons f

orm or e tha n thi r ty da y s orha d a g r o s s r e v e n u e o f

$ 2 ,0 0 0 in a n y s in g le d a y . . . . K a ia la u a r g u e s f

o rth e f ir s t tim e o n ap p e a l th a t th is in s tru c tio n im p r o p e r ly i nstruct ed the j ury t o d et erm i ne w hether “ the defendant , ” i . e. , K ai al au hi m se l f, rath er th an “ th e en t erp ri se, ” en g ag ed i n rack et eeri n g act i v i ty. K a i a l a u’ s a r gum e ntf

a i l s be c a us e i ta s ks us t o vi e w the w or ds “ the defe nd ant ” i n the fi rs tel em entl i st ed i n Instruct i on N o. 25 i n i sol at i on , ra ther than in c o n te x t o f

th e in s tru c tio n a s a w h o le . A s a w h o le , I n s tru c tio n N o . 2 5 in s tru c ts th e j u ry t o d e t e rm i n e wh e th e r“ th e e n t e rp r i s e ” r e q u i r e db y a § 1 9 5 9 VI C AR offe nse e ng aged i n “ ra cket ee ri ng ac t i vi ty” by cond uct i ng al l or partof an i l l egal5

ga m bl i ng bus i ne s s i n vi ol a t i on of § 1955. T he f

i r s tpa r a gr aph of

I ns truc t i on N o. 25 s ta te s th is e x p r e s s ly : “T h e s e c o n d e le m e n t w h ic h th e G o v e rn m e n t m u s t p r o v e . . . i s that th e e n te rp r is e w a s e n g a g e d in r a c k e te e r in g a c tiv ity .” K a i a l a u i s c orr e c ttha tthe j ury s ubm i tt e d a not e t o the c our ts e e ki ng c l a r i f i c a t i on on I ns truc t i on N o. 25. B ut , i n i t s r e s pons e t o the j ury ’ s not e , the di stri ctcourtagai n l i nk ed Instruct i on N o. 25 t o the “ ent erpri se ” e l em entof the § 1 9 5 9 V I C A R o f

f e n s e a n d in s tru c te d th e ju ry to ap p ly th e e le m e n ts lis te d in Instruct i on N o. 25 t o the “ ent erpri se , ” s t at i ng : “ T o p rove that th e en t erp ri se en g ag ed i n rack et eeri n g act i v i ty, th e G o v ern m en tm u stp ro v e th atth e en t erp ri se vi ol a t e d 18 U . S . C . § 1955. T he e l e m e nt s of tha tc r i m e a r e s e tf

or th i n I ns truc t i on N u m b e r2 5 .” A c c o r d in g ly , w e h o ld th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t d id n o t c o m m it p la in e rr ori n I ns truc t i on N o. 25. B. T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t lik e w is e d id n o t e rrin its r e s p o n s e to th is s a m e ju ry n o te by i ncl ud i ng a r e- i nstruct i on thatthe j ury m ustdet erm i ne w hether K ai al au c o m m itte d a n a s s a u lt in e x c h a n g e f o rc o m p e n s a tio n f

r o m th e e n te rp r is e o rto se cure hi s posi t i on i n the ent erpri se . A ttri al , K ai al au conceded thatthe di stri ct court ’ s r es po nse w as “ a c orre ctst at em entof the l aw , ” butobj ec t ed thatre i ns truc t i on on a s s a ul tw a s “ notr e s pons i ve t o a ny que s t i on” the j ury a s ke d. T he6

di stri ctcourtov errul ed K ai al au’ s obj ec t i on , st at i ng thati tbel i eved the j ury had i m pl i c i t l y a s ke d the c our tt o c l a r i f y w ha ta c t s “ the e nt e rpr i s e ” ha d t o c om m i ta nd w ha ta c t s “ the de f

e nda nt ” ha d t o c om m i tt o s uppor ta c onvi c t i on. W e hol d tha tthe di s tr i c tc our t ’ s r e s pons e pr ovi de d appr opr i a t e c l a r i f i c a t i on on the di s t i nc t i on betw ee n “ the ent erpri se ” and “ the defendant ” a nd thu s di d n otconst i tut e e rr or, l et al on e pl ai n err or. C. T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t a ls o d id n o t e rrw h e n it s ta te d in r e s p o n s e to a n o th e rn o te f r om the j ury tha t“ [ t ] he G ove rnm e ntdoe s notne e d t o pr ove tha tthe D e f e nda nt

‘ pers on al l y c on du ct , m anage or di re ctthe w ho l e i l l egal gam bl i ng bu si ness ’ or w as a le a d e ro f

th e e n te rp r is e , if

y o u f in d o n e e x is te d .” T h is r e s p o n s e w a s p e r f e c tly ac cura t e. A s a dd re ss ed abov e, un der § 19 55 i ti s acr i m e t o con du ct , fi nance, m a n a g e , s u p e rv is e , d ir e c t, o ro w n “a ll o r p a rt of an i l l egal gam bl i ng bu si ness . ” § 1 9 5 5 ( e m p h a s is a d d e d ) . K a ia la u ’s a r g u m e n t h a s n o m e r it. II I. F ur the r , w e r e

j e c tK a i a l a u’ s a r gum e nttha tthe di s tr i c tc our te rr e d by f a i l i ng t o excl ud e the t es t i m on y of tw o w i tness es , Joon W oo L ee and F ra nk B al as i , as u n f a ir ly p r e ju d ic ia l u n d e rF e d e r a l R u le o f E v id e n c e 4 0 3 . T h o u g h w e g e n e r a lly r e v ie w th e a d m is s io n o f e v id e n c e f

o rab u s e o f

d is c r e tio n , U

ni ted Stat es v. A l l en ,7

3 4 1 F .3 d 8 7 0 , 8 8 6 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ) , w h e r e “a p a r ty d o e s n o t lo d g e a s p e c if ic obj e c t i on i n the di s tr i c tc our t , y e ta s s e r t s e rr oron appe a l , w e r e vi e w unde rour fa m i l i arpl ai n err or st andard, ” Sant i ago , 466 F . 3d a t803. W e hol d thatthe di stri ctcourtdi d n otcom m i tpl ai n err or by perm i tt i ng L ee a nd B a l a s i t o t e s t i f

y aboute ve nt s tha toc c urr e d a f t e rthe c ha r ge d a s s a ul t s of J ul y 30 a nd A ugus t3, 2003. T he i rt e s t i m ony w a s r e l e va ntt o c ontr a di c ta nd r e but K ai al au’ s c l ai m thathe barel y knew L ee and thathe never t ou ched B al as i . N ei ther L ee ’ s nor B al as i ’ s t es t i m on y had “ an un du e t endency t o sug gestdeci si on on an i m prop erbasi s, ” F ED . R. E V ID . 4 0 3 a d v is o ryc o m m itte e ’s n o te , b e c a u s e b o th te s tif ie d ab o u t in c id e n ts th a t p a le d in c o m p a r is o n to th e c h a r g e d a s s a u lts . A cc ordi ng l y, K ai al au ca nn otshow thatthe i ntrodu ct i on of thi s e vi dence w as un fa i rl y pre

j ud i ci al , l etal on e thati t s pre j ud i ci al i m pactsubst ant i al l y outw ei gh ed i t s probat i ve val ue for i m peac hm entpu rposes and for prov i ng thatK ai al au c om m i tt e d the c ha r ge d a s s a ul t s t o a i d a n e nt e rpr i s e e nga ge d i n r a c ke t e e r i ng act i v i ty. I V. F i na l l y , w e r e

j e c tK a i a l a u’ s a r gum e nttha tthe di s tr i c tc our tpl a i nl y e rr e d by adm i tt i ng i nt o evi dence a c hartt i t l ed “ R ob ertK ai al au O rgani za t i on ” thati ncl ud ed th e f a c e s a n d n a m e s o f

s e v e n te e n in d iv id u a ls a s s o c ia te d w ith K a ia la u ’s s e c u r ity8

o rg an i zat i o n an d W an g ’ s i l l eg al g am b l i n g b u si n ess. K ai al au ar gu es for the fi rs tt i m e on app ea l thatthe di stri ctcourtpl ai nl y e rr ed by a dm i tt i ng the c ha r ti nt o e vi de nc e , r a the rtha n s i m pl y a l l ow i ng the G ove rnm e nt t o u se i tas a pedagog i ca l devi ce un der F eder al R ul e of E vi dence 100 6. H ow ever , thi s c ou rthas a ff

i rm ed the adm i ss i on of sum m ary c hart s i nt o evi dence i n sever al ca se s, ci t i ng di stri ctcourt s’ broad d i sc re t i on t o regul at e pre se nt at i on of evi dence u n d e rF e d e r a l R u le o f

E v id e n c e 6 1 1 ( a ) . See U n ite d S ta te s v . P o s c h w a tta , 829 F . 2d 1 4 7 7 , 1 4 8 1 ( 9 th C ir . 1 9 8 7 ) ( o v e rru le d o n o th e rg r o u n d s ) ; U ni ted Stat es v. G ardn er , 6 1 1 F .2 d 7 7 0 , 7 7 6 ( 9 th C ir . 1 9 8 0 ) . A s the G ove rnm e ntc orr e c t l y poi nt s out , thi s c a s e i nvol ve d num e r ous i nd i vi du al s, m any of w ho m have si m i l ar -s ou nd i ng nam es and m any of w ho m ar e r e f e rr e d t o by a l i a s e s . I n f a c t , K a i a l a u’ s c ouns e l hi m s e l f us e d the c ha r ton a nu m ber of occa si on s a ttri al . G i ven the fa ctual com pl exi ty of thi s c as e, the chart ve ry l i ke l y c ontr i but e d t o the c l a r i ty of the pr e s e nt a t i on of

e vi de nc e t o the j ury , a nd the r e f or e , w e hol d tha tthe di s tr i c tc our t ’ s f a i l ur e t o e xc l ude the c ha r tf r om evi dence di d n otconst i tut e pl ai n err or. A FFI R M ED .