Opinion ID: 778180
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Challenges to the Sufficiency of the CCE Indictment

Text: 60 A continuing criminal enterprise, as proscribed by 21 U.S.C. § 848, is defined in part as a continuing series of felony drug violations of any of the provisions in the subchapters comprising §§ 801-971 of Title 21. See 21 U.S.C. § 848(c). We have interpreted a continuing series to mean at least three felony drug violations committed over a definite period of time. See, e.g., United States v. Aiello, 864 F.2d 257, 264 (2d Cir.1988). 61 In Richardson v. United States, 526 U.S. 813, 119 S.Ct. 1707, 143 L.Ed.2d 985 (1999), the Supreme Court held that in order to find a defendant guilty of engaging in a continuing criminal enterprise, the jury may not simply agree that the defendant committed three underlying crimes but must unanimously agree on which of the (three or more) individual violations constituted the continuing series. See id. at 824, 119 S.Ct. 1707. Although Richardson requires that the jury be unanimous on each of the constituent felonies, we have held that an indictment that does not identify which of many alleged felonies constituted the series is not thereby defective. In Santana-Madera v. United States, 260 F.3d 133 (2d Cir.2001) ( Santana-Madera ), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 122 S.Ct. 817, 151 L.Ed.2d 701 (2002), we noted the lack of specificity in the indictment: 62 [L]ike nearly all pre- Richardson CCE indictments, Santana-Madera's indictment did not specify which offenses constituted the continuing series of violations. The CCE count simply alleged that Santana-Madera organized or managed at least five other persons in connection with three or more of the nine federal drug law violations alleged in the indictment. 63 260 F.3d at 136. However, we rejected the contention that the lack of specificity meant that the CCE count failed to charge an offense. We concluded that in alleg[ing] that Santana-Madera supervised five or more people in the commission of three or more of the nine violations of the drug laws listed in the indictment[, t]he indictment thus alleged all the elements of the CCE offense, ... even after Richardson.  Santana-Madera, 260 F.3d at 140 n. 3. 64 Count three of the superseding indictment in the present case was less informative than the indictment in Santana-Madera as to the felonies constituting the series, for count three referred only to felony violations of ... Sections 841(a)(1) and 846, and counts one and two simply charged § 846 conspiracies to violate §§ 841(a)(1) and 860; but we cannot conclude that the superseding indictment thereby failed to allege an offense. In order to state an offense, [a]n indictment need only track the language of the statute and, if necessary to apprise the defendant `of the nature of the accusation against him,' ... state time and place in approximate terms. United States v. Bagaric, 706 F.2d 42, 61 (2d Cir.) (quoting Russell v. United States, 369 U.S. 749, 766, 82 S.Ct. 1038, 8 L.Ed.2d 240 (1962)), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 840, 104 S.Ct. 134, 78 L.Ed.2d 128 (1983), abrogated on other grounds by National Organization for Women, Inc. v. Scheidler, 510 U.S. 249, 114 S.Ct. 798, 127 L.Ed.2d 99 (1994). Count three here closely tracked the language of § 848(c), and it alleged that the continuing series of felonies were violations of §§ 841(a)(1) and 846, and that the enterprise was conducted [i]n or about and between 1992 and April 1998 ... within the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere. We thus conclude that count three did not fail to charge an offense. 65 Finally, we note that the jury was properly instructed, in accordance with Richardson, that it must be unanimous as to each constituent felony in order to find defendants guilty of continuing criminal enterprise: 66 I must emphasize that if you do find beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did commit a series of drug crimes as claimed by the government, you must unanimously agree among yourselves on at least three of the acts in the series in order to find [the continuing series of violations] element of the CCE count to be established. In short, as I mentioned before, it can't be the case that some of you agree as to some, others of you agree as to others. You must all unanimously agree beyond a reasonable doubt as to three or more narcotics related offenses before you can find the defendant you are considering guilty of the CCE count charged in Count Three. 67 In sum, we see no lack of notice in the superseding indictment and no error in the submission of the CCE count to the jury. 68