Opinion ID: 407608
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: the judicial precedent for the form of indictment chosen

Text: BY THE U.S. ATTORNEY 45 The case law which has already developed nationwide on the question of identifying a governmental unit as the RICO enterprise is unanimous 6 in rejecting appellants' single appellate contention in this case. United States v. Dozier, 672 F.2d 531, 543 & n.8 (5th Cir. 1982); United States v. Angelilli, 660 F.2d 23, 30-34 (2d Cir. 1981), cert. denied, sub nom. Butler v. United States, --- U.S. ----, 102 S.Ct. 1442, 71 L.Ed.2d 657 (1982); Sutherland v. United States, 656 F.2d 1181, 1198, 71 L.Ed.2d 663 (5th Cir. 1981) cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 102 S.Ct. 1451 (1982), and cert. denied, Maynard v. United States, --- U.S. ----, 102 S.Ct. 1617, 71 L.Ed.2d 852 (1982); United States v. Lee Stoller Enterprises, Inc., 652 F.2d 1313, 1316-1319 (7th Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 102 S.Ct. 636, 70 L.Ed.2d 615 (1981); United States v. Long, 651 F.2d 239, 241 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 102 S.Ct. 396 (1981); United States v. Stratton, 649 F.2d 1066, 1074-75 (5th Cir. 1981); United States v. Clark, 646 F.2d 1259, 1261-1267 (8th Cir. 1981); United States v. Altomare, 625 F.2d 5, 7 (4th Cir. 1980); United States v. Karas, 624 F.2d 500, 504 (4th Cir. 1980), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1078, 101 S.Ct. 857, 66 L.Ed.2d 800 (1981); United States v. Baker, 617 F.2d 1060-1061 (4th Cir. 1980); United States v. Bacheler, 611 F.2d 443, 450 (3d Cir. 1979); United States v. Grzywacz, 603 F.2d 682, 685-687 (7th Cir. 1979), cert. denied, 446 U.S. 935, 100 S.Ct. 2152, 64 L.Ed.2d 788 (1980); United States v. Frumento, 563 F.2d 1083, 1089-1092 (3d Cir. 1977), cert. denied, sub nom. Millhouse v. United States, 434 U.S. 1072, 98 S.Ct. 1256, 55 L.Ed.2d 775 (1978); United States v. Brown, 555 F.2d 407, 415-416 (5th Cir. 1977), cert. denied, sub nom. Seymour v. United States, 435 U.S. 904, 98 S.Ct. 1448, 55 L.Ed.2d 494 (1978); United States v. Vignola, 464 F.Supp. 1091, 1095-97 (E.D.Pa.), aff'd mem., 605 F.2d 1199 (3d Cir. 1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1072, 100 S.Ct. 1015, 62 L.Ed.2d 753 (1980). 7 46 We note specifically that in the six Court of Appeals cases underlined above, the single issue presented in this case was also presented to the United States Supreme Court on petition for writ of certiorari and in each instance certiorari was denied. 47 We recognize, of course, that the Supreme Court warns that denial of certiorari should not be accepted as an expression of its decisional authority. Nonetheless, the repeated Supreme Court rejections of efforts on behalf of convicted defendants in at least six cases from four separate circuits to overturn their convictions on grounds identical with that urged by appellants in this case is certainly of more than passing interest. 48 We should note that this circuit, prior to the panel decision in this appeal, had also decided the same issue in accordance with the result of the circuit court cases listed above-albeit in an unpublished opinion-with somewhat less detailed consideration. United States v. Durham, 652 F.2d 59 (6th Cir. 1981) (unpublished opinion). 49 In the Durham case this court foreshadowed this opinion by saying: 50 Irrespective whether a mere allegation that the Davidson County Criminal Court Clerk's Office constituted the enterprise under 18 U.S.C. § 1961(4) (1976), would be sufficient, count one of the indictment, substantially incorporated by reference in count two, extensively sets forth facts in sufficient detail to allege an enterprise within the purview of the Act. The indictment here clearly alleged predicate illegal undertakings by a group of individuals working together. In United States v. Sutton, 642 F.2d 1001 (6th Cir. 1980), (cert. denied, 453 U.S. 912 (101 S.Ct. 3144, 69 L.Ed.2d 995) (1981) ), this court held that there was no statutory requirement under the Act that the enterprise referred to be legitimate. 51 Id. at 3. 52 All of the above having been said, we recognize that the form of indictment employed here has not been approved by the Supreme Court and is still subject to review there.