Opinion ID: 2799819
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Meregildo

Text: Meregildo challenges the sufficiency of the evidence with respect to whether: CAC was an association‐in‐fact enterprise as contemplated by RICO; he was a part of the alleged narcotics conspiracy; he was involved in the murder of Carrel Ogarro; and Ogarroʹs murder was in furtherance of the RICO enterprise or for pecuniary gain. The thrust of Meregildoʹs principal argument is that the evidence at trial established merely random acts of violence in the vicinity of the Melrose‐ Jackson Houses, rather than ʺthe organization, continuity, structure or intent of an ʹenterpriseʹ as intended under RICO.ʺ Meregildo Brief (ʺBr.ʺ) 38. Specifically, he argues that the government failed to prove that CAC had the requisite hierarchy to satisfy the enterprise element of RICO; CAC lacked sufficient longevity to pursue the enterpriseʹs purpose; and the government failed to establish the separate existence of an enterprise as something distinct from the predicate acts. These arguments fail, both legally and factually. ‐ 9 ‐ First, as a matter of law, the requirements for proving a racketeering enterprise are not so rigid as Meregildo contends. As the Supreme Court noted in Boyle v. United States, ʺan association‐in‐fact enterprise is simply a continuing unit that functions with a common purpose. Such a group need not have a hierarchical structure or a ʹchain of command.ʹʺ 556 U.S. 938, 948 (2009). Moreover, there is no hard‐and‐fast time period for satisfaction of the longevity prong. ʺContinuity is both a closed‐ and open‐ended concept, referring either to a closed period of repeated conduct, or to past conduct that by its nature projects into the future with a threat of repetitionʺ H.J. Inc. v. Nw. Bell Tel. Co., 492 U.S. 229, 241 (1989) (internal quotation marks omitted). Finally, ʺthe evidence used to prove the pattern of racketeering activity and the evidence establishing an enterprise ʹmay in particular cases coalesce.ʹʺ Boyle, 556 U.S. at 947 (quoting United States v. Turkette, 452 U.S. 576, 583 (1981)). Second, as a factual matter, the evidence was sufficient to establish that CAC was an enterprise. A cooperating witness testified that the crew had guns ʺ[t]o protect us from our beefs, our problems with other neighborhoods and other crews.ʺ Tr. 637. Related testimony established that the crew had a base of operations on Courtlandt Avenue near the Melrose‐Jackson Houses, members ‐ 10 ‐ had tattoos and signs that signified their membership, and numerous crimes were committed by CAC members in furtherance of the enterprise, including the murders of Jason Correa, Carrel Ogarro, and Delquan Alston. The evidence was sufficient to permit a rational juror to infer that Harrison and the other members of the crew ʺjoined in the shared purpose of selling drugs and promoting such sales.ʺ United States v. Burden, 600 F.3d 204, 215 (2d Cir. 2010). Hence, the governmentʹs evidence established that CAC was a continuing unit that functioned with a common purpose: the illicit sale of narcotics in and around the Melrose‐Jackson Houses. We conclude further that sufficient evidence was presented at trial to show that Meregildo was a participant in the alleged narcotics conspiracy. Four cooperating witnesses, for example, testified that they had purchased marijuana from Meregildo, and two of them testified that they observed Meregildo receiving marijuana from Harrison. One of the cooperating witnesses testified that Meregildo supplied him, as well as other GFC members, with crack cocaine to sell, and that Meregildo assumed a leadership role in the narcotics conspiracy after Harrisonʹs murder. Another cooperating witness testified that Meregildo gave him bags of crack cocaine for distribution on multiple occasions. ‐ 11 ‐ And a third cooperating witness testified that after Harrisonʹs death he observed Meregildo breaking up pieces of crack cocaine and packaging it in small baggies. The trial testimony of these primary cooperating witnesses was sufficient to establish that Meregildo ʺknew of the existence of the scheme alleged in the indictment and knowingly joined and participated in it.ʺ United States v. Rahman, 189 F.3d 88, 123 (2d Cir. 1999) (internal quotation marks omitted). Finally, Meregildo contends that the evidence was insufficient to prove that he murdered and conspired to murder Carrel Ogarro or that he did so in aid of the enterprise or for pecuniary gain. Meregildo points to evidence that Ogarro was in fact murdered by the cooperating witness Devin Parsons, possibly because of a personal problem Ogarro was having with Walter Aponte. Parsons, however, testified that Meregildo shot Ogarro at Harrisonʹs direction, due to Harrisonʹs suspicion that Ogarro was ʺsnitchingʺ with regards to CACʹs activities. Tr. 2301. Parsons described how, in July 2010, he, Meregildo, and Aponte waited for Ogarro near the Melrose‐Jackson Houses basketball court, and how he and Meregildo both fired their guns at Ogarro, hitting him repeatedly. He also testified that Harrison promised Meregildo and Parsons $5,000 to kill Ogarro. ‐ 12 ‐ Meregildo argues that Parsonsʹ testimony was contradicted by forensic evidence and other testimony. But the jury could have reasonably rejected Meregildoʹs contentions and accepted the governmentʹs proof, and apparently it did so. Thus, the evidence was sufficient to permit the inference that Meregildo was a member of the alleged narcotics conspiracy and that he participated in the murder of Ogarro in aid of the CAC enterprise.