Because gang killing has become a normal part of inner citiesmany including police hold preconceptions about the causes of death in inner cities.
RICO is a broadly-worded statute that makes it a federal crime for individuals to participate in, or profit from, any association with a criminal organization.
A defendant can be convicted under RICO if the government can show the existence of an association-in-fact enterprise, and that the enterprise engaged in racketeering activity.
Boyle attempted to dismiss the indictment with a pretrial motion, citing prior individuals' convictions that claimed groups named the "New Springville Boys" and the "Bank Crew" were responsible for these same robberies.
See Brief for Petitioner at The United States claimed the different names were just labels applied to the group, which had similar and overlapping members over the years, for the ease of prosecution, and that they were not indicative of different groups.
Most of Boyle's codefendants had pled guilty by the start of the trial, so the United States proceeded against Boyle alone. The United States asserted the Boyle Crew planned and carried out crimes as a formal group, where each member had an assigned role, and where they split the proceeds of successful jobs.
Boyle denied the existence of the Boyle Crew, contending he and the other men were individuals acting on an impromptu basis with no formal organizational structure. The EDNY denied Boyle's request for an amended jury instruction that would have required the Unites States to prove that the enterprise had a formal structure and hierarchy.
The jury convicted Boyle of racketeering and racketeering conspiracy under RICO, as well as bank burglary, bank burglary conspiracy, and attempted bank burglary. BoyleFed. Boyle was sentenced to months in prison. The Second Circuit focused its review on whether the United States violated Boyle's Due Process rights when they asserted that two separate enterprises-the Boyle Crew and the New Springfield Boys-were responsible for the same crimes.
The Second Circuit found no Due Process violations and affirmed the conviction, stating that separate criminal enterprises could easily work together and commit the same crime for their own benefit. The Supreme Court then granted Boyle's petition to determine a three-way circuit split over what constitutes an enterprise under the RICO statute, and whether the government needs to show that the enterprise existed outside of the commission of the criminal acts at issue.
Congress broadly defined the key terms in the statute to maximize law enforcements' ability to charge all of the participants in, and beneficiaries of, such criminal organizations with a federal crime.
RICO has now grown to cover groups well outside the world of organized crime, sparking a debate in the lower courts as to the scope of RICO. The Supreme Court 's decision in Boyle v. United States will resolve a three-way circuit split by defining the scope of an enterprise under RICO.
Petitioner Boyle argues that the Unites States must prove the enterprise has an organized structure aside from the underlying crimes, while the United States claims that it need not prove there is such an ascertainable structure.
Indictments under RICO allow for seizure of assets prior to the trial, and convictions under RICO allow for jail sentences of up to twenty years per count of racketeeringand the recovery of treble damageslitigation costs, and punitive damages. They contend, however, that the Second Circuit's ruling turns RICO into a "sanction against multiple criminality of almost any sort," meaning RICO could be applied broadly anytime multiple crimes are committed.
This not only goes against the Congressional intent of the Act, but it would effectively allow the underlying offenses to merge with RICO and radically affect the sentences criminal defendants are subject to.
This concern is echoed by groups that fear they will be the targets of RICO indictments should the broad definition of enterprise be affirmed. If the definition of enterprise is taken to the extreme, the United States Chamber of Commerce fears that legitimate businesses will become the targets of frivolous RICO lawsuits, sued by litigants drawn in by RICO's broad definitions and lucrative penalties.
This could result in financial ruin for some businesses, create inefficiencies in the marketplace, and prevent normal transactions between businesses out of fear that their association will be viewed as a RICO enterprise. Brief of the CC at See Brief for Respondent at The United States claims this type of language is necessary to net both the formal and informal groups of criminal associates that were the targets of this legislation.
Some suggest that Congress knew there would be consequences such as the ones feared above, yet still chose to draft the statute broadly because "Congress was so intent on catching the sharks that it cast its statutory net as broadly as it could, ensuring more than a few minnows would be swept up as well.
The very nature of organized crime is that it could pervade almost any type of legitimate business, from hotel and restaurant management to trash collection, and Congress purposely created the broad and vague language in order to give law enforcement a wide berth for bringing RICO charges.
And although a driving force behind the statute was to prosecute organized crime, it was not the sole purpose. The United States argues that Congress meant for this statute to enable law enforcement to crack down on all types of associations that resulted in or revolved around criminal activity, and this congressional intent will be rendered moot should the key terms in RICO be narrowed or limited.
Brief for Respondent at In addition to these concerns, there is also a fear that failure to require a structure or organization beyond the underlying criminal activity could result in an imbalance between the enforcement of state and federal laws.
This would allow for the federalization of certain state crimes, so long as they were committed by a group of individuals. The Center on the Administration of Criminal Law claims Congress gave the federal government new jurisdiction over certain state crimes with the intent that this interference would only take place if the heightened RICO criteria were met, and not simply to prosecute a "pattern of racketeering activity.
This sort of interference could undermine state sovereignty and strike a blow to the core of federalism by undermining the policy judgments of local authorities, causing confusion over who should be held politically accountable for such prosecutions, and resulting in a misallocation of judicial and law enforcement resources.
Here, Boyle argues, the prosecution failed to meet their burden. Textual and Precedential Arguments The crux of Boyle's argument is that an ascertainable structure requirement is implicit in RICO's plain text and meaning as interpreted by the Supreme Court.Jose Docobo.
ABSTRACT: Like traditional crime, terrorism is a local issue and is a responsibility shared among federal, state, and local governments. In the wake of September 11, local law enforcement has taken on a pivotal role in preventing and responding to future incidents of terrorism within the United States.
Cuba also emerged as a transit point and destination for illicit narcotics during the first half of the twentieth century, and organized crime groups from the United States established themselves there during Prohibition.
organized crime overlap and intersect in important ways.[ 1] The nightmare scenario is that these intersections will result in a WMD being brought into the United States and used to inflict large- scale casualties that would dwarf those of September 11, Mexico—with an organized-crime death toll of more than 47, in less than five years—continues to bear the brunt of organized crime.
Other countries—Colombia, Guatemala, Honduras, Jamaica and Brazil among them—also feel the impact and yet others will do so in . It is my great privilege to be here today to help unveil the President's Strategy to Combat Transnational Organized Crime.
As we all know, the United States and many other countries have prospered greatly from globalization and financial integration. Sep 10, · issue; they provided the information in our cyber-crime survey; and they came to Washington to While overall crime in the United States is down almost to s levels, cybercrime is increasing.
Local and state govern-ments must recognize that the crime-fighting suc-.