Opinion ID: 654592
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Language on the Sec. 1959 Conspiracy Counts

Text: 87 In the district court's instructions on the Sec. 1959 conspiracy counts, the court again used language that blurred the Sec. 1959 motive requirement. As with the substantive counts, the court began by informing the jury of the charge in the indictment and of the statutory provision, both of which include the maintaining or increasing position clause. 88 In proceeding to instruct the jury as to what it needed to find in order to convict on these counts, though, the court again used its in aid of racketeering catch phrase. The court did not at that point expressly advise the jury that, in order to convict on the Sec. 1959 conspiracy counts, the jury was required to find that the defendant in question conspired to commit murder for the purpose of maintaining or increasing his position in the enterprise. 89 At another point, when instructing the jury as to the nature of the alleged conspiracy, the court often used a short-hand phrase with respect to the object of the conspiracy that did not adequately reflect the need for proof of a position-related purpose. For example, the court instructed that a conspiracy is defined very simply as an agreement between two or more persons to commit a crime and that 90 [i]t is enough if the Government proved two or more persons, one of whom being the defendant you are considering in any way, either expressly or impliedly, came to a common understanding to commit a crime to violate the law.... 91 (emphasis added). The court also concluded using the short-hand: 92 Summing up then, the essential elements of the offense charged in counts three, five, seven and nine, conspiracy to murder in aid of racketeering, each of which the Government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt are: 93 First, that [a] conspiracy existed. That is two or more people, one of whom is the defendant that you are considering, agreed to violate federal law against murder in aid of racketeering. 94 And second, that the defendant knowingly and willfully became a member of the conspiracy. 95 .... 96 The burden is on the Government to prove each and every element. There are two, the existence of the conspiracy and the defendant's membership in it, beyond a reasonable doubt. 97 (emphasis added). These instructions arguably left the potential for the jury to misunderstand the nature of the Sec. 1959 conspiracy charges against Gotti and Locascio. It should be noted, though, that these lapses came after the district court had already properly instructed the jury on the position-related motive requirement of Sec. 1959. The jury did receive accurate instructions initially, although the district court proceeded to refer back to the motive requirement with the short-hand in aid of racketeering catch-phrase rather than the more precise increase or maintain language. 98