Opinion ID: 3003750
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The CCE Instructions

Text: The CCE statute is designed to target the “top brass” of drug operations, United States v. Markowski, 772 F.2d 358, 360-61 (7th Cir. 1985) (quotation omitted), and thus requires the government to prove that the defendant managed or organized at least five or more people in the course of committing a “continuing series” of drug offenses, 21 U.S.C. § 848(c). Johnson argues that his CCE conviction must be reversed because, according to him, the district court never instructed the jury that it had to agree unanimously that Johnson managed, supervised, or organized at least five other individuals. In challenging the jury instructions Johnson first argues that the court erred in refusing to instruct the jury that it must agree unanimously on the identity of each of the five managed individuals. But we have held that the jury is not required to agree on the identity of the five people whom a defendant managed or supervised in the context of a CCE. United States v. Hardin, 209 F.3d 652, 659-60 (7th Cir. 2000); United States v. Gibbs, 61 F.3d 536, 538 (7th Cir. 1995); cf. Richardson v. United States, 526 U.S. 813, 824 (1999) (assuming, without deciding, that a jury need not agree on the identities of the five managed persons). Here the jury heard evidence suggesting that Johnson managed or supervised more than five people, including Nelson, Phillips, Buckner, Ball, No. 06-3048 15 Robertson, Craig Abbey, Joe Abbey, and numerous unnamed street dealers. The CCE statute requires only that the jurors conclude that Johnson managed at least five from this pool; it does not require them to agree on which five. See 21 U.S.C. § 848; United States v. HerreraRivera, 25 F.3d 491, 497 (7th Cir. 1994). Recognizing that his first argument is foreclosed, Johnson argues that at the very least, the district court should have given this circuit’s pattern CCE instruction, which states: “[i]n order to find that the defendant acted in concert with five or more persons, you must unanimously agree that the defendant organized, supervised or managed five or more persons in committing the series of offenses.” See Seventh Cir. Pattern Inst., “21 U.S.C. § 848, Continuing Criminal Enterprise—Five or More Persons,” available at http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/ pjury.pdf. The government proffered the pattern instruction at the initial jury-instruction conference as proposed instruction 28, but later withdrew it. Johnson did not object to the withdrawal, but he now argues that the district court erroneously omitted the instruction. According to Johnson, without the pattern instruction we cannot be sure that the jurors unanimously agreed that he fulfilled the required managerial role. The parties dispute whether Johnson properly preserved for appeal his challenge to the legal sufficiency of the CCE jury instructions. Defense counsel did not object when the government withdrew proposed instruction 28, but Johnson argues that his counsel’s request for a heightened unanimity instruction with respect to the 16 No. 06-3048 identity of the managed people demonstrates that at a minimum he wanted the pattern instruction to be given. If trial counsel’s requests sufficiently preserved the issue, we would review the district court’s failure to give the pattern instruction de novo, see United States v. DeSantis, 565 F.3d 354, 359 (7th Cir. 2009); if Johnson forfeited the issue by failing to object, we would review it for plain error only, see id. at 361. We need not decide whether Johnson preserved the issue in the scuffle over proposed government instruction 28, because his challenge fails under either standard. See, e.g., United States v. Garcia, ___ F.3d ___, 2009 WL 2750261, at  n.5 (7th Cir. Sept. 1, 2009). In reviewing the sufficiency of jury instructions, we look to the instructions as a whole to determine whether “the jury was misled in any way and whether it had understanding of the issues and its duty to determine those issues.” United States v. Berndt, 530 F.3d 553, 555 (7th Cir. 2008) (quoting United States v. Fawley, 137 F.3d 458, 467 (7th Cir. 1998)). Jury instructions are sufficient if, taken together, they convey the issues “fairly and accurately.” United States v. Souffront, 338 F.3d 809, 834 (7th Cir. 2003) (quotation omitted). We would reverse only if the instructions, viewed in their entirety, “mislead the jurors to the litigant’s prejudice.” See United States v. Smith, 223 F.3d 554, 566 (7th Cir. 2000) (quotation omitted). Viewed as a whole, the district court’s instructions were sufficient to ensure that the jury members understood that they could find Johnson guilty of the CCE offense only if they unanimously agreed that he managed No. 06-3048 17 or supervised at least five people. The district court informed the jury that to prove Johnson’s involvement in a CCE the government was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Johnson organized, supervised, or managed more than five people. The court emphasized that if the government did not prove that element of the CCE charge beyond a reasonable doubt, the jury must find Johnson not guilty. The court also informed the jury that its “verdict on each count, whether it be guilty or not guilty, must be unanimous.” Although perhaps the pattern instruction would have communicated the unanimity requirement more clearly, the combination of instructions sufficiently conveyed to the jury its duty to decide unanimously whether the government met its burden on every element of the charged offenses. Johnson has not explained how the jury could reach a unanimous verdict on the CCE charge without unanimously agreeing on all of the required elements of the CCE offense. Accordingly, we conclude that the court’s instructions fairly and accurately informed the jury that it was required to agree unanimously on every element of the CCE offense, including Johnson’s managerial role. See United States v. Palivos, 486 F.3d 250, 257 (7th Cir. 2007).