Court Opinion

ID: 9802836
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 14:56:03.899324+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:02:18.034810
License: Public Domain

SUHRHEINRICH, J,
dissenting:
The majority finds the evidence sufficient for the jury to have found that Ma-chen ratified his membership in the conspiracy after he turned eighteen because two other members of the conspiracy testified that he was still a gang member in 2011 and the government offered evidence that “Machen participated in Royal’s initiation into the gang after he turned eighteen.” Nonetheless, the majority holds that the district court erred by failing to instruct the jury on ratification despite Machen’s failure to request such an instruction because “[t]he evidence of Ma-chen’s pre-majority conduct was so substantial,” and the evidence of Machen’s post-majority conduct was so “meager in comparison,” that the jury must have based the guilty verdict on the pre-majority conduct. This reasoning ignores the majority’s own finding that there was sufficient evidence to establish that Machen ratified his membership in the conspiracy after he turned eighteen by participating in a gang initiation. The act of participating in a gang initiation is not an insubstantial act. Indeed, it is clearly an act that furthers the conspiracy and reaffirms membership in the conspiracy. In light of this substantial fact, I do not see how the error affected Machen’s substantial rights, because, as the majority found, this evidence was sufficient for the jury to conclude that Machen had participated in the conspiracy after his eighteenth birthday. See United States v. Maddox, 944 F.2d 1228, 1234 (6th Cir.1991). For this reason, I would affirm Machen’s conviction.