Opinion ID: 788340
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Predicate Acts (Conduct of Enterprise's Affairs)

Text: 37 Fernandez, Sanchez and Gonzales argue that there was insufficient evidence to support their racketeering convictions because the only predicate acts found by the jury were the conspiracies to murder Turscak, Detevis and Lopez, which were not part of the conduct of the enterprise's affairs, but rather the acts of individuals who had personal feuds with the intended victims. As such, they assert, the conspiracies could not be substantive RICO violations. 38 First, contrary to Appellants' arguments, the jury specifically found that Fernandez and Sanchez had committed two predicate acts in addition to the charged murder conspiracies — the drug trafficking conspiracies in Los Angeles and in jail. Thus, even if there were insufficient evidence on the murder conspiracies, the jury found the requisite minimum of two predicate acts for these two Appellants. 12 39 Second, the argument that conspiracies to murder other members of the enterprise could not be part of the enterprise's affairs is a variation on a theme reprised throughout Appellants' briefs, the central assertion of which is that any violence between factions within an organization either proves that the group was not a RICO enterprise, or that the violence could not be considered a predicate act of the enterprise's racketeering activity. See, e.g., 2002 WL 32302660 at , 70, 84. Similar arguments have been flatly rejected by the Second Circuit, and Appellants' argument is inconsistent with the jurisprudence of at least two other circuits. 40 In United States v. Orena, 32 F.3d 704 (2d Cir.1994), a case involving the violent `war' between factions of the Colombo Family criminal enterprise, the Second Circuit rejected the appellant's argument that the evidence was legally insufficient to support the RICO verdicts because no rational juror could have concluded that the Colombo Family enterprise continued to exist after July 1991, when the Orena and Persico factions commenced their conflict. Id. at 710. The court held that [t]he existence of an internal dispute does not signal the end of an enterprise, particularly if the objective of, and reason for, the dispute is control of the enterprise. Id. (concluding that the evidence did show the existence of an ongoing enterprise, in part because [a] surveillance recording indicated that Colombo Family members expected relationships to return to normal after the war was over) (citation omitted). See also United States v. Brady, 26 F.3d 282, 284-85, 288 (2d Cir.1994) (holding, in a case like Orena where the indictment alleged a dispute between factions for control of the enterprise, that evidence admitted at trial was relevant to prove the existence of a war, that in turn was essential to prove the existence of the [murder] conspiracy that was part of the same internal struggle for control of the Family); United States v. Coonan, 938 F.2d 1553, 1560-61 (2d Cir.1991) (rejecting a sufficiency challenge that argued violent in-fighting somehow proves that the [enterprise] was never a cohesive, ongoing association because evidence clearly established that, regardless of internal disputes and membership changes, the [group's] power structure endured and its members functioned as a unit during the relevant period); United States v. Marino, 277 F.3d 11, 26 (1st Cir.2002) (noting, in the course of a discussion on evidence admissibility, that two factions existed within the same overall enterprise despite a conflict between them); United States v. Pungitore, 910 F.2d 1084, 1100-01 (3d Cir. 1990) (holding that[t]he evidence also shows that the appellants killed in response to a member's showing of disloyalty to the organization ... and to eliminate a faction of the enterprise's membership which threatened [one defendant's] leadership). 41 Moreover, in another Mexican Mafia case, we upheld the convictions of several Eme members against insufficient evidence challenges, where one count of the indictment charged five defendants with conspiracy to kill [another member] because he was politicking against other members, threatening to kill other members, claimed to have made an individual a member without following the proper procedure, and for generally causing dissension within the organization. Shryock, 342 F.3d at 967. See United States v. Shryock, Appellants' Joint Opening Br., 2001 WL 34091052, at  (arguing that evidence was insufficient to establish enterprise because it showed the existence of independent groups or members often in conflict with each other without any decision making structure); Shryock, 342 F.3d at 988-89 (summarily rejecting all sufficiency challenges). 42 The evidence presented at trial showed that despite the violent dispute between the Martinez/Torvisco/Fernandez and Turscak/Detevis factions, members of the group still identified themselves as members or associates of the Eme; still invoked the reputation and power of the group as a whole when dealing with people outside the organization; and expected the entire organization to endure beyond the `war,' after which relationships and methods of operation would return to normal. Despite the dispute between two factions within the organization, therefore, the evidence clearly established a single Eme enterprise. 43