Opinion ID: 196936
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Murder of James Boyden III.

Text: 90 Houlihan asserts that his convictions on count 5 (conspiring to murder James Boyden III in aid of racketeering), count 6 (abetting that murder), and count 15 (hiring another to perform that murder) cannot stand. His major theme is that the government failed to link him to the murder in any meaningful way. We find merit in this proposition. 91 To convict Houlihan for conspiring to murder in aid of racketeering, see 18 U.S.C. § 1959(a), or for abetting the murder, see id., the government had to prove that (1) the organization masterminded by Fitzgerald and Houlihan constituted a racketeering enterprise; (2) that, depending on the count, Houlihan conspired to commit, or aided and abetted the commission of, the murder; and (3) that Houlihan participated in the arrangement for the purpose of maintaining or increasing [his] position in a [racketeering] enterprise. Id. By like token, under the murder-for-hire statute the government had to prove (1) that Houlihan joined in causing the killing of another, (2) paying a price or other consideration, (3) with the specific intent to commit the substantive crime (murder), and (4) that interstate facilities were used by one or more of the participants in the course of perpetrating the crime. See 18 U.S.C. § 1958. 92 A common thread runs through all three counts. In one form or another, the government had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that in the spring of 1992 Houlihan conspired to murder James Boyden III (count 5), and/or aided, abetted, counselled, commanded [or] induced that murder (count 6), and/or used facilities in interstate commerce ... to hire other individuals and to arrange the intended murder of James Boyden III (count 15). Under each of these counts, the government had to show at a bare minimum that Houlihan intended the murder of James Boyden III to take place and that he acted upon that intent. See, e.g., United States v. Rivera-Santiago, 872 F.2d 1073, 1079 (1st Cir.) (explaining that proof of a charged conspiracy requires, inter alia, proof of intent to commit the substantive offense), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 910, 109 S.Ct. 3227, 106 L.Ed.2d 576 & 493 U.S. 832, 110 S.Ct. 105, 107 L.Ed.2d 68 (1989); United States v. Loder, 23 F.3d 586, 591 (1st Cir.1994) (stating that an aider and abettor must consciously share[ ] the specific criminal intent of the principals); 18 U.S.C. § 1958 (specifically requiring proof that the defendant acted with intent that a murder be committed). In other words, as Judge Young instructed the jury, the government had to show that Houlihan intentionally arranged for the murder of James Boyden III by Joseph Nardone, or aided and abetted that crime, and that he had the specific intent of causing the murder. 93 We have combed the record in light of this highly specific subset of charges to determine whether the government satisfied its burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that Houlihan perpetrated these three interrelated crimes. We have come up empty. In our judgment there is insufficient evidence that Houlihan, whatever other atrocities he may have committed, intended to bring about the execution of James Boyden III, or that he participated in any culpable way in the commission of that crime. 94 The evidence depicts Fitzgerald as the leader of the organization and Houlihan as his second-in-command. The government's theory is that Nardone killed Boyden III, and that Fitzgerald and Houlihan jointly directed him to do so. But the government's star witness, Nelson, testified that, according to Nardone, Fitzgerald alone ordered the murder. 23 95 This seems reasonable in view of the fact that the murder grew out of events surrounding the assassination of the victim's son (Boyden IV). The younger Boyden, against Fitzgerald's explicit warning, had continued to sell cocaine in the sales territory assigned to Jennierose Lynch (Fitzgerald's paramour). After several violent encounters, Boyden IV turned up dead. The government charged Fitzgerald, Lynch, and Herd--but not Houlihan--with that murder. As recounted earlier, the judge granted Fitzgerald's motion for a mistrial on those charges (and he presumably remains subject to retrial); the judge ordered the charges against Lynch dropped as part of an overall plea bargain; and the jury acquitted Herd. 96 The record strongly suggests that the son's murder set the stage for the father's murder, and that the killings were related. The government makes no effort to implicate Houlihan in the former crime, and there is only a tenuous set of inferences linking him to the latter crime. 97 Virtually the only intimation that Houlihan may have played a role in the killing of Boyden III comes from Sargent's tape-recorded statement during which the following colloquy transpired (references in the colloquy to Boyden, Sr. refer to James Boyden III): 98 SARGENT: I was having a couple of drinks, and [Houlihan] mentioned ... that--that there's two ... that's going to go. 99