Opinion ID: 783826
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: The Trial and the Jury Charge

Text: 46 In January and February 2001, Pimentel and Viruet were tried together. The trial lasted approximately three weeks, during which the Government called a number of witnesses. Several of these witnesses, some of whom testified pursuant to cooperation agreements, discussed the structure and practices of the Netas and the respective roles of Pimentel and Viruet in Santiago's murder. Viruet testified on his own behalf, admitting that he drove the get-away car but denying that he knew they were driving to Santiago's house to kill him. Instead of denying that they were involved in Santiago's murder, the Defendants sought to establish that the Netas was not an enterprise that engaged in racketeering activity, as that term is defined in 18 U.S.C. § 1961, and that Santiago's murder had not been committed in order to maintain[] or increase their position[s] in a criminal enterprise, as required by 18 U.S.C. § 1959(a). 47 During the charging conference, Pimentel's counsel requested that the proposed jury instructions be amended to include references to the elements of the crimes that the Government alleged constituted the racketeering activities, including murder, attempted murder, and drug trafficking as those terms were used in the proposed charge. The Government objected to expanding the proposed charge, explaining that the proposed instruction was exactly the [charge] used over and over again in [§] 1959 cases and that it would be very confusing and burdensome for the jury to have to consider four or five more elements for each of the racketeering acts. The District Court declined to amend the proposed charge. As a result, the discussion of racketeering activity in the District Court's charge to the jury consisted of nothing more than: (1) paraphrasing the indictment's allegations that the Netas engaged in racketeering activity, as defined in the United States Code, namely, murder, attempted murder and drug trafficking, activities that violate state or federal law; (2) reading Counts One and Two of the indictment and the relevant portions of 18 U.S.C. § 1959, all of which refer to an enterprise engaged in racketeering activity; and (3) instructing the jury that the first element of proof common to both charges was that during the time period relevant to this count, an enterprise existed which was engaged in racketeering activity affecting interstate commerce. Thus, the District Court did not make any effort to explain any particular findings the jury would have to make to conclude that the Netas engaged in conduct that would constitute murder, attempted murder, or drug trafficking that was in violation of state or federal law. 48 During its second day of deliberations, the jury sent a note to the District Court requesting that the court provide it with the legal definition of trafficking. The District Court proposed to answer this question by referring the jury to the term trafficking as it is in the charge. The Defendants' counsel objected to this proposed response, and requested that the term trafficking be defined for the jury. In making this request, counsel noted that he had foreseen such a problem with the jury charge before it was given and had unsuccessfully requested that the charge be amended to include a definition of trafficking. The District Court declined to provide the jury with a definition, and instead responded to the note by instructing the jury to look at three pages of the charge where the word trafficking was used: I'm not going to define that for them .... I will tell them they have to look at the word in the context of the sentence or paragraph in which it is used, and they will have to define it themselves. When the jurors returned to the court-room, the District Court told them: 49 I cannot define this word trafficking in the abstract, but what I will do is, I refer you to the charge that I gave, and you look at that word in the context that it is used. I refer you to page 40 of the charge. I refer you to page 41 of the charge. To be specific, page 40, if you look at the last line of the last full paragraph on page 40; and then if you look at the third line of page 41; and you look at the last line of page 45 of the charge. 50 The following day, the jury convicted Pimentel and Viruet on all four counts with which they were charged. These timely appeals followed. 2