Opinion ID: 693893
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Adequacy of the Jury Instructions and Sufficiency of the Evidence

Text: 9 To establish a violation of RICO, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1962(c), the government must prove that (1) the defendant engaged in an enterprise; (2) the enterprise affected interstate commerce; (3) the enterprise's affairs were conducted through a pattern of racketeering activity; and (4) the conduct of those affairs involved two or more of the racketeering offenses set forth in the statute. United States v. Qaoud, 777 F.2d 1105, 1114 (6th Cir.1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1098 (1986). An enterprise is a group of persons associated together for a common purpose of engaging in a course of conduct, and a pattern of racketeering activity is a a series of criminal acts as defined by the statute. United States v. Turkette, 452 U.S. 576, 583 (1981). The enterprise is an entity separate and apart from the pattern of activity ... [and] [t]he existence of an enterprise at all times remains a separate element which must be proved by the Government. Id. 10 Defendant first argues that the district court erred by instructing the jury that the government could prove the pattern of the racketeering activity and the existence of the enterprise with the same evidence. This court has unambiguously stated, Although 'enterprise' and 'pattern of racketeering activity' are separate elements, they may be proved by the same evidence. Qaoud, 777 F.2d at 1115. The court's instruction was a correct statement of the law. 11 Defendant next contends that the government failed to present sufficient evidence to establish either the substantive RICO charge or the RICO conspiracy charge. In assessing the sufficiency of the evidence, this court must determine whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979). 12 Defendant first argues that the government failed to prove the existence of an enterprise separate and distinct from the pattern of racketeering activity or defendant himself. The heart of his argument seems to rest on the fact that the jury found him not guilty of all the prostitution-related predicate acts with the exception of act eleven, aiding and abetting one act of interstate travel for the purpose of prostitution. Defendant contends that these findings establish that the government did not prove the existence of a prostitution ring, and thus failed to meet its burden of proving the existence of an enterprise. 13 This argument has no merit. The existence of an enterprise is proved by evidence of an ongoing organization, formal or informal, and by proof that the various associates function as a continuing unit. Turkette, 452 U.S. at 583. The government met its burden here. Overwhelming evidence in the record establishes the existence of an ongoing prostitution organization under defendant's control. Defendant supervised the prostitutes, obtained residences in which they lived, collected prostitution proceeds, doled out living expenses, and enforced discipline. Two senior prostitutes, codefendants Darlene Court and Rose Wilkinson, managed the residences where the prostitutes lived, maintaining security, scheduling appointments, and providing transportation. Experienced prostitutes helped recruit and train new prostitutes. 14 Defendant next argues that the racketeering acts which the jury found him to have committed were not related to the alleged prostitution enterprise. He contends that the financial structuring acts were for his own personal benefit and had nothing to do with any enterprise. Defendant's argument is unpersuasive. He does not challenge the government's assertion that prostitutes lived in the homes that he purchased through the structuring transactions. Rose Wilkinson, who had a substantial role in running the prostitution ring, also was heavily involved in the structuring activity. Finally, the jury could reasonably have inferred that one of defendant's purposes in structuring the transactions was to avoid an IRS investigation which might lead to discovery of the prostitution ring. Although the government never presented smoking gun evidence of defendant's purpose, the jury is allowed to draw reasonable inferences from basic facts to ultimate facts. Jackson, 443 U.S. at 319. Defendant argued to the jury that he committed the structuring offenses for his own personal benefit, not the benefit of the prostitution ring. The jury chose to believe that he was structuring the transactions to further the goals of the enterprise. The record contains sufficient evidence to support this finding. 15 Although defendant's argument is somewhat unclear, he also seems to contend that the government failed to prove his acts constituted a pattern of racketeering activity as defined in H.J. Inc. v. Northwestern Bell Tel. Co., 492 U.S. 229 (1989). There, the Court held that to prove a pattern of racketeering activity a ... prosecutor must show that the racketeering predicates are related, and that they amount to or pose a threat of continued criminal activity. Id. at 239. Contrary to defendant's argument, the government satisfied its burden of proving both these elements.