Court Opinion

ID: 9469362
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 02:38:18.293891+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:41:20.834507
License: Public Domain

HEANEY, Circuit Judge,
dissenting.
I accept the majority’s interpretation of the RICO provisions in question here. It is *1206consistent with United States v. Turkette, 452 U.S. 576, 101 S.Ct. 2524, 69 L.Ed.2d 246 (1981); United States v. Bledsoe, 674 F.2d 647 (8th Cir. 1982); and United States v. Anderson, 626 F.2d 1358 (8th Cir. 1980). I reject, however, their conclusion that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the convictions on the RICO counts.
In my view, the evidence fails to show either that the defendants shared with Gamst and with each other a common purpose, that there was a continuity of structure or personnel, or that a structure distinct from that inherent in the predicate acts of racketeering, the series of arson fires, existed. The most that the evidence proves is that Gamst planned and executed a series of arson fires with one or more of the defendants. The fires were not the product of a unified system of operation. Each incident succeeded or failed on its own. There was no showing of shared risks or profits and only a limited showing of shared purpose among some, but not all, of the defendants.
The evidence does show that each of the defendants worked with Gamst in carrying out one or more arson fires. It does not establish, however, that they worked with one another over a period of time as a part of an ongoing enterprise. Each defendant may have known that Gamst worked with other persons in setting fires and collecting insurance benefits, but there is little or no evidence to support the view that the participants were a part of a joint venture.
Accordingly, I dissent.