Opinion ID: 3173815
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Heroin Distribution

Text: Vernace next argues that the evidence was insuﬃcient for the jury to find that between January 1981 and May 1981 he distributed or conspired to distribute heroin or that such drug oﬀenses related to the Gambino crime family. At trial, however, multiple witnesses testified that during this period ʺRon and ‐ 19 ‐ Pepeʺ were supplying heroin. E.g., App. at 321. Testimony showed that Vernace went by ʺPepe.ʺ And a reasonable juror could have concluded that ʺRonʺ was none other than Ronald Barlin, Vernaceʹs partner from the Shamrock Murders. In fact, as Barlin and others were being arrested for possession of heroin, Vernace telephoned to check that everything was all right. Vernaceʹs participation was further shown by testimony that he asked a dealer (Gleckler) to start dealing heroin. A reasonable jury could have concluded on this evidence that Vernace and his associates engaged in a heroin traﬃcking operation. Vernace argues alternatively that any such activities were not related to the Gambino crime family because the family did not sanction, and indeed had rules against, drug dealing. He insists that any such activities were merely personal aﬀairs. Vernaceʹs challenge fails for much of the same reason that his challenge to the Shamrock Murders failed. We have consistently held that predicate acts need not be ʺin furtherance ofʺ the racketeering enterprise to be related. E.g., Bruno, 383 F.3d at 84; Locascio, 6 F.3d at 943. The Gambino crime family could have, by its internal rules, discouraged drug dealing, and still, as a factual matter, been engaged in it as part of its racketeering activities. Indeed, the jury heard evidence that this was the case here. Witnesses testified that the ‐ 20 ‐ Gambino crime family engaged widely in drug traﬃcking to generate money for themselves. The jury further heard that high‐ranking Gambino members regularly distributed drugs, used other lower‐ranked members to distribute drugs, or refused to enforce the so‐called rule against drug dealing. It was therefore reasonable to conclude that, despite a facial prohibition on drug dealing, the Gambino crime family profited from it and Gambino members, including Vernace, regularly participated in it. Accordingly, a reasonable jury could have concluded that Vernace distributed and conspired to distribute heroin in relation to the Gambino crime family.1