Court Opinion

ID: 9471727
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 03:39:48.847281+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:42:33.142782
License: Public Domain

JON O. NEWMAN, Circuit Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part:
Except for the reversal of Santora’s conviction on Count One, see Part II, infra, I concur in Judge Pratt’s thorough opinion for the Court and write separately primari|ly to discuss his suggestion that in complex ¡RICO trials it would be useful to put special interrogatories to the jury to ascertain which predicate acts the jurors find to have been proven.
I. Jury Interrogatories in Criminal Cases
Without doubt the use of jury interrogatories is a practical way of avoiding a retrial in the class of RICO cases, of which this is one, where a legally insufficient predicate act has been submitted to a jury but two or more valid acts, adequate to support a guilty verdict, can be established. An interrogatory eliciting “yes” responses as to two or more valid predicate acts would permit affirmance in such a case, so long as the jury, by a general verdict of guilty, found that all of the elements of the offense charged has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. What is less certain is whether we may authorize even such a limited use of jury interrogatories in criminal cases.
There is no counterpart in the Federal •.Rules of Criminal Procedure to the general authority contained in Rule 49(b) of the *926Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to have a jury respond to interrogatories when returning a general verdict.1 Arguably, the absence of such general authority for interrogatories in criminal cases together with the specific requirement for special verdicts in Fed.R.Crim.P. 31(e) applicable only to criminal forfeiture cases, see United States v. Huber, 603 F.2d 387, 396 (2d Cir.1979), cert, denied, 445 U.S. 927,100 S.Ct. 1312, 63 L.Ed.2d 759 (1980), and the specific requirement for findings in non-jury criminal cases, Fed.R.Crim.P. 23(c), all suggest that interrogatories are not to be used in criminal cases. However, there is lacking in the history of Fed.R.Crim.P. 31 any indication that interrogatories were intended to be prohibited in jury cases, cf. United States v. Pachay, 711 F.2d 488, 490 (2d, Cir.1983) (evidence of intent to prohibit waiver of jury unanimity), and the fact that special jury fact-finding is required in criminal forfeiture cases does not mean that is not permissible in other criminal cases. Moreover, Fed.R.Crim.P. 57(b) provides that in the absence of a procedure specified by rule, the court may proceed “in any lawful manner not inconsistent with these rules or with any applicable statute.”
Some case law has disfavored jury interrogatories in criminal cases, see, e.g., Stein v. New York, 346 U.S. 156, 178, 73 S.Ct. 1077,1089,97 L.Ed. 1522 (1953) (questioning the practice); United States v. Bosch, 505 F.2d 78 (5th Cir.1974) (conviction reversed because interrogatories used); United States v. Spock, 416 F.2d 165 (1st Cir.1969) (same); Gray v. United States, 174 F.2d 919 (8th Cir.) (same), cert, denied, 338 U.S. 848, 70 S.Ct. 90, 94 L.Ed. 519 (1949), see also United States v. Jackson, 542 F.2d 403, 412-13 (7th Cir.1976) (approving rejection of defendant’s request for interrogatory on insanity defense), though support for the practice has been expressed, Fuller v. United States, 407 F.2d 1199, 1221, 1231 n. 47 (D.C.Cir.1968) (en banc), cert, denied, 393 U.S. 1120, 89 S.Ct. 999, 22 L.Ed.2d 125 (1969). However, the selective use of interrogatories has been approved in criminal cases, most pertinently in United States v. Palmeri, 630 F.2d 192, 202-03 (3d Cir.1980), cert, denied, 450 U.S. 967,101 S.Ct. 1484, 67 L.Ed.2d 616 (1981), where the jury was asked to indicate which of 46 predicate acts were proven in a multi-defendant RICO case, and in other cases when necessary to establish a fact crucial to sentencing or an overt act constitutionally required for the offense of treason. See cases collected in United States v. Spock, supra, 416 F.2d at 182 n. 41.
In this Circuit, the practice has evoked differing responses. We expressed general disapproval in United States v. Adcock, 447 F.2d 1337, 1339 (2d Cir.) (per curiam), cert, denied, 404 U.S. 939, 92 S.Ct. 278, 30 L.Ed.2d 252 (1971), though we were there rejecting the prosecution’s effort to salvage an invalid conviction by faulting the defendant for failing to request interrogatories. See Skidmore v. Baltimore & Ohio Ry., 167 F.2d 54, 70 (2d Cir.) (L. Hand, J., concurring) (jury particularization “undesirable” in criminal cases), cert, denied, 335 U.S. 816, 69 S.Ct. 34, 93 L.Ed. 371 (1948). See also United States v. Gallishaw, 428 F.2d 760, 765 (2d Cir.1970) (noting the issue, but not resolving it). In United States v. Margiotta, 646 F.2d 729, 733-34 (2d Cir. 1981), cert, denied,-U.S.-, 103 S.Ct. 1891, 77 L.Ed.2d 282 (1983), we pointed out the permissible use of an interrogatory if requested by a defendant to identify one or more actionable mailings underlying a single mail fraud count. We have also approved an interrogatory when pertinent to sentencing. United States v. Stassi, 544 F.2d 579, 583-84 (2d Cir.1976), cert, denied, 430 U.S. 907, 97 S.Ct. 1176, 51 L.Ed.2d 582 (1977). In two cases, as Judge Pratt points out, we have affirmed RICO convictions and noted without comment the use of interrogatories to identify predicate acts, though the practice was not challenged on *927appeal. United States v. Walsh, 700 F.2d 846, 851 (2d Cir.), cert, denied, - U.S. -, 104 S.Ct. 96, 78 L.Ed.2d 102 (1983); United States v. Angelilli, 660 F.2d 23, 30 (2d Cir.1981), cert, denied, 455 U.S. 945,102 S.Ct. 1442, 71 L.Ed.2d 657 (1982). Also instructive is Judge Palmieri’s thoughtful opinion in United States v. Ogull, 149 F.Supp. 272 (S.D.N.Y.1957), aff’d without consideration of this point sub nom. United States v. Gernie, 252 F.2d 664 (2d. Cir.), cert, denied, 356 U.S. 968, 78 S.Ct. 1006, 2 L.Ed.2d 1073 (1958),2 explaining the need to use an interrogatory to determine whether the defendants’ conduct was governed by a recently enacted statute.
Various considerations underlie the opposition to jury interrogatories in criminal cases. There is apprehension that eliciting “yes” or “no” answers to questions concerning the elements of an offense may propel a jury toward a logical conclusion of guilt, whereas a more generalized assessment might have yielded an acquittal.3 See United States v. Spock, supra, 416 F.2d at 182. The possibility also exists that fragmenting a single count into the various ways an offense may be committed affords a divided jury an opportunity to resolve its differences to the defendant’s disadvantage by saying “yes” to some means and “no” to others, although unified consideration of the count might have produced an acquittal or at least a hung jury. These concerns apparently influenced the courts in United States v. James, 432 F.2d 303 (5th Cir.1970), cert, denied, 403 U.S. 906, 91 S.Ct. 2214, 29 L.Ed.2d 682 (1971) (interrogatory asked jury to identify objects of a conspiracy); United States v. Spock, supra (identification of means of committing the offense); Gray v. United States, supra (same), although jury identification of objects of a conspiracy has been approved when the defendant consents, United States v. O’Looney, 544 F.2d 385, 392 (9th Cir.), cert, denied, 429 U.S. 1023, 97 S.Ct. 642, 50 L.Ed.2d 625 (1976). Interrogatories are especially objectionable when they make resolution of a single fact issue determinative of guilt or innocence, without regard to the elements of an offense, see United States v. Bosch, 505 F.2d 78, 80-81 (5th Cir.1974) (existence of promise of immunity), or when their wording shifts the burden of proof to the defendant, United States v. Wilson, 629 F.2d 439 (6th Cir.1980) (interrogatory concerning insanity defense). Also of obvious danger, though not considered prejudicial in the circumstances presented, is an interrogatory to be answered only in the event of an acquittal. See Heald v. Mullaney, 505 F.2d 1241 (1st Cir.1974), cert, denied, 420 U.S. 955, 95 S.Ct. 1339, 43 L.Ed.2d 432 (1975). In general, those opposing interrogatories fear that any particularization of the jury’s decision-making will risk interference with the jury’s romantic power of nullification, or as Learned Hand felicitously phrased it, “tempering [the law’s] rigor by the mollifying influence of current ethical conventions.” United States ex rel. McCann v. Adams, 126 F.2d 774, 776 (2d Cir.), rev’d on other grounds, 317 U.S. 269, 63 S.Ct. 236, 87 L.Ed. 268 (1942). Though courts refuse to inform a jury of this prerogative, United States v. Dougherty, 473 F.2d 1113, 1130-37 (D.C.Cir.1972); United States v. Boardman, 419 F.2d 110, 116 (1st Cir.1969), cert, denied, 397 U.S. 991, 90 S.Ct. 1124, 25 L.Ed.2d 398 (1970), some condemn interrogatories because they may impair an opportunity the jury is not told it has. See United States v. Spock, supra, 416 F.2d at 182.
On balance, I am persuaded that a District Court should have the discretion to use a jury interrogatory in cases where risk of prejudice to the defendant is slight and the advantage of securing particularized fact-finding is substantial. Ascertainment of *928predicate acts in a complex RICO trial is an example where the balance tips decidedly in favor of using an interrogatory. The concerns that have prompted disapproval of interrogatories in other contexts are either totally lacking or at best insignificant in this type of case, and such use might avoid the time and cost of a long retrial. I therefore agree that we should join with the Third Circuit in approving the use of an interrogatory to identify proven predicate acts in complex RICO trials. United States v. Palmeri, supra.
The procedure to be followed when an interrogatory is used in a criminal’ trial should be within the discretion of the trial judge. It may be worth considering ah instruction to the jury, reflected on the interrogatory form, that the interrogatory concerning specification of predicate acts is to be answered only in the event that the jury has agreed upon a general verdict of guilty. This approach enables the jury to perform its generalized task first, responding to the interrogatory thereafter only if a guilty verdict reflects that the jury has found all the elements of an offense established, including the existence of at least two predicate acts.4 See United States v. Ogull, supra, 149 F.Supp. at 275. Also worth considering, especially in a complicated case, is an instruction that in the event of a conviction the jury should endeavor to answer the interrogatory concerning predicate acts but need not feel obliged to respond as to every alleged act on what might be a long list. See United States v. Dia-pulse Manufacturing Corp., 389 F.2d 612, 614-15 (2d Cir.) (approving interrogatory that permitted jury to indicate some of the specifications it found established in libel action for condemnation of misbranded product), cert, denied, 392 U.S. 907, 88 S.Ct. 2059, 20 L.Ed.2d 1365 (1968). And I assume that in every case the trial judge has the discretion not to use an interrogatory at all if persuaded that its use under the circumstances risks prejudice to the defendant.
II. Santora’s Conviction on Count One
The majority reverses Santora’s conviction on Count One, charging a RICO conspiracy in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d) (1982), because of the legal insufficiency of one of the eight predicate acts alleged in that count of the indictment. I agree that predicate act 5m is legally insufficient because the offense there alleged, a conspiracy to violate 18 U.S.C. § 1955 (1982), is not within the definition of “racketeering activity” set forth in section 1961(1). I respectfully dissent, however, from the majority’s ruling that the legal insufficiency of predicate act 5m requires reversal of Santora’s conviction on Count One.
At trial Santora made no attempt to withdraw predicate act 5m from the jury’s consideration.5 I would hold that his failure to object waived the deficiency of which he now complains.
It is a familiar rule that a. conviction must be set aside whenever the jury’s verdict rests on alternative bases, one of which is invalid, and it cannot be determined with adequate confidence that the jury relied on the valid basis. See Stromberg v. California, 283 U.S. 359, 51 S.Ct. 532, 75 L.Ed. 1117 (1931). That rule, however, is usually invoked when the defendant has alerted the trial court to his objection to the submission of the invalid basis to the jury.6 In the *929absence of objection, we have consistently held that the defendant has waived the defect in one basis of a count and that the existence of a valid alternative basis for conviction warrants affirmance. United States v. Cunningham, 723 F.2d 217 (2d Cir.1983); United States v. Mowad, 641 F.2d 1067 (2d Cir.), cert, denied, 454 U.S. 817, 102 S.Ct. 94, 70 L.Ed.2d 86 (1981); United States v. Dixon, 536 F.2d 1388 (2d Cir.1976); United States v. Bonacorsa, 528 F.2d 1218 (2d Cir.), cert, denied, 426 U.S. 935, 96 S.Ct. 2647, 49 L.Ed.2d 386 (1976); United States v. Natelli, 527 F.2d 311 (2d Cir.1975), cert, denied, 425 U.S. 934, 96 S.Ct. 1663, 48 L.Ed.2d 175 (1976); United States v. Goldstein, 168 F.2d 666 (2d Cir.1948); United States v. Mascuch, 111 F.2d 602 (2d Cir.), cert, denied, 311 U.S. 650, 61 S.Ct. 14, 85 L.Ed. 416 (1940). The majority distinguishes this line of authority on the ground that in each case the reason that one alternative basis for conviction was invalid was insufficiency of evidence. For lack of evidence, one of several specifications of perjury was sought to be challenged for the first time on appeal in Cunningham, Bonacorsa, Natelli, Goldstein, and Mascuch, and one of several objectives of a conspiracy was challenged in Dixon and Mowad. At most, the majority’s distinction requires us now to consider whether the legal deficiency of an alternative basis for a conviction is waivable in the same manner as an evidentiary deficiency. The fact that our prior cases have found waiver when the deficiency was evidentiary is no reason to rule against waiver in this case where the deficiency is one of law.
Confronting the issue, I see no valid argument against waiver. One of several alternative bases for conviction is just as invalid whether the deficiency is lack of evidence or lack of criminality under the pertinent statute. When the defect is lack of evidence, we subject the defendant to the risk that the jury may have rested its decision solely on the invalid basis, for example, a specification of a perjury charge. We do not permit the defendant to withhold his objection until appeal. We assume that the trial judge would have withdrawn the invalid basis from the jury’s consideration if asked to do so, and we further assume, in the absence of objection, that the conviction adequately rests on the valid bases. The same reasoning should apply here where the invalid basis arises because one of several RICO predicate acts is not within the statutory definition of “racketeering activity.” Of course we would notice as plain error a defect in an indictment arising from the omission of a significant aspect of the offense alleged, if the omitted aspect had not been framed for jury consideration by the instructions. That rule underlies our reversal of Tomasulo’s conviction on Count One, because the invalidity of one of the predicate acts he is alleged to have committed leaves only one other predicate act charged to him; he has therefore been convicted without an allegation or proof of having committed two valid predicate acts. But Santora was alleged in Count One to have committed seven valid predicate acts, and the evidence sufficed to permit his conviction. There is simply no reason to permit him to raise for the first time on appeal the invalidity of one predicate act when any two of the remaining seven support his conviction.
Even if the waiver rule of Dixon and Natelli should not generally be applied unless the defect in an alternative basis for conviction is insufficiency of evidence, there are compelling circumstances warranting a finding of waiver in this case. The only plausible argument against waiver, possibly valid in some eases, is that there might be too great a risk that the jury would not have convicted on the valid basis if the invalid basis had been objected to and withdrawn from the jury’s consideration. That risk is illusory in this case. It is totally unrealistic to think that the jury that convicted Santora on Count One after hearing evidence against him involving the seven *930valid predicate acts charged in that count— four murder conspiracies, two drug conspiracies, and one robbery conspiracy — would have hesitated even momentarily in reaching a guilty verdict had they not been permitted to consider the eighth predicate act — conspiracy to violate the federal gambling statute.
Furthermore, the jury convicted Santora on Count Two, which charged a substantive RICO violation, 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c) (1982). That verdict demonstrates' that the jury found beyond a reasonable doubt that San-tora had committed at least two of the eight predicate acts alleged in that count, none of which is deficient in any respect. The majority rejects the Government’s argument that the jury’s finding of at least two predicate acts under Count Two may be enlisted to support the conviction on Count One. To do so, the majority contends, permits the Government to violate traditional rules of pleading that require a conviction on any one count to be based only on the allegations set forth in that count. But the issue here is not whether the Government is entitled to some extra benefit that may be in violation of rules of pleading; rather, the issue is whether the defendant should be relieved of the consequences of his own failure to object to the legal invalidity of one of the eight predicate acts alleged in Count One.- The jury’s guilty verdict on Count Two, necessarily finding that Santo-ra committed at least two acts of racketeering, eliminates entirely any risk that the jury would not have convicted him on Count One if predicate act 5m had been withdrawn.
I therefore dissent from the reversal of Santora’s conyiction on Count One. In all other respects, I concur in the Court’s opinion.

. Though the term “special verdict” is sometimes used as the equivalent of a jury interrogatory, “special verdicts,” as contemplated by Fed.R.Civ.P. 49(a), are used to elicit precise findings by the jury in the absence of a general verdict, and “interrogatories,” contemplated by Fed.R.Civ.P. 49(b), are used in conjunction with a general verdict.

. The use of an interrogatory was agreed to by defense counsel in the trial court, United States v. Oguli, supra, 149 F.Supp. at 278, and not challenged on appeal.

. I think it more likely that a jury, generally inclined toward conviction by unflattering evidence about the defendant or by his vague connection with the alleged offense, might be impelled to acquit if obliged to record its determination of the existence of the elements of the offense in cases where the evidence concerning one or more elements is questionable.

. I assume that the jury, if it votes to convict, would be instructed to proceed immediately to consideration of the interrogatory, and report both its general verdict and its interrogatory responses simultaneously, rather than seriatim, as the First Circuit has suggested, United States v. Spock, supra, 416 F.2d at 183, n. 42.

. Santora’s objection to Count One in its entirety on the ground that conspiracies may not be alleged as predicate acts to a RICO conspiracy charge does not suffice to call the trial judge’s attention to a deficiency that concerns only one of the predicate acts. See United States v. Goldstein, 168 F.2d 666, 671 (2d Cir.1948) (motion to dismiss a perjury count does not suffice as an objection pertinent to only one of four specifications of perjury).

. In Stromberg v. California, supra, in which the Supreme Court found unconstitutional a state ban on displaying a red flag for one of the three purposes proscribed by the state statute, the defendant, who had been charged with displaying a red flag for all three proscribed purposes, was deemed to have made an objection in the trial court that related to the validity “not merely of the statute taken as a whole, but *929of each one of the three clauses separately relied upon by the State in order to obtain a conviction.” 283 U.S. at 365, 51 S.Ct. at 534.