Opinion ID: 622756
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Mere Association

Text: Although the district court did not state in so many words that more than mere association with others engaged in criminal activity is necessary to support a conviction, United States v. Ogando, 547 F.3d 102, 107 (2d Cir.2008) (internal quotation marks omitted), it effectively conveyed that essential idea. In its conspiracy instruction, the court stress[ed] that merely being present[] at a place where criminal conduct is underway doesn't make a person a member of a conspiracy and that the defendant must have participated with knowledge of at least some of the purposes or objectives of the conspiracy and with the intention of aiding in the accomplishment of its unlawful ends. Trial Tr. at 1808. In its aiding and abetting instruction, the court stated that the mere presence of a defendant where a crime is being committed, . . . even coupled with knowledge by the defendant that a crime is being committed, or the mere acquiescence by a defendant in the criminal conduct of others, even with guilty knowledge, is not sufficient and that the jury must find that defendant participate[d] in the crimes charged as something he wished to bring about. Id. at 1810. Further, it conveyed that more than mere association was necessary to support conviction for substantive racketeering by its instruction that the jury must find that Coppola played some part in the operation or management of the enterprise. Id. at 1826. Thus, we identify no error warranting a new trial. See United States v. Han, 230 F.3d 560, 565 (2d Cir.2000) (holding that defendant has no cause to complain where court communicates substance of requested charge).