Opinion ID: 654592
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Language in the Substantive Sec. 1959 Counts

Text: 77 A review of the instruction reveals that the district court initially clearly instructed the jury that the government had to prove that Gotti and Locascio committed the murders in order to maintain or increase their respective positions in the enterprise. Referring to substantive counts four, six, and eight, the court specifically charged that 78 the fourth element that the Government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that the defendant's purpose in committing the murder was to maintain or increase his position in the racketeering enterprise. In determining whether a defendant's purpose in committing the murder was to maintain or increase his position in that enterprise, you should give the words maintain or increase their ordinary meaning. You should consider all the facts and circumstances in making that determination. 79 For example, you may consider evidence that the crime, if proved, was committed in order to maintain discipline within the enterprise and served to maintain the defendant's position with the enterprise. 80 If the defendant committed a crime because he thought it would enhance his position or prestige within the enterprise, or if he committed it because he thought it was necessary to maintain the position he already held in the enterprise, the element would be established. 81 These examples are only meant by way of illustration. They are not exhaustive. 82 These instructions are entirely consistent with the language in Concepcion. Seeid. 83 The district court's initial instructions on the substantive Sec. 1959 counts, then, correctly reflected the government's burden to show that Gotti and Locascio acted to increase or maintain their respective positions in the enterprise. As the instructions continued, however, the district court unfortunately began to use a short-hand phrase to refer to the Sec. 1959 motive requirement. 84 Toward the end of its instructions on the substantive Sec. 1959 counts, the court summarized its Sec. 1959 instructions without mentioning the maintaining-or-increasing-his-position motive and using instead the short-hand phrase in aid of racketeering. The court said, [i]n short, that the jury should convict on the substantive Sec. 1959 count in question if it found that the government proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant the jury was considering committed the crime of murder or aided or abetted the commission of that crime in aid of racketeering. Since virtually all crimes could be committed in aid of racketeering without the motive of maintaining or increasing the perpetrator's position in the enterprise, this summary was unfortunately vague. Though the phraseology may be cumbersome, the district court should remind the jury of the position-related motivation requirement that is applicable to each Sec. 1959 count. 85 Gotti and Locascio argue that the charge was fatally flawed because of the use of the in aid of racketeering language. The district court, however, only used the ambiguous short-hand language in the summary of the instruction, after having articulated the requirement correctly throughout the rest of the explanation of the counts. Moreover, the court gave the jurors the indictment, which alleged that Gotti and in some cases Locascio together with others conspired to murder and/or murdered four individuals for the purpose of maintaining and increasing their positions in the Gambino Family. At the point when the district court lapsed into short-hand, the jury was already well aware of the motive requirement. 86