U.S. v. Darden

• Decision Date: 22 November 1995
• Docket Number: 93-3448,Nos. 93-3386,93-3449,93-3451,s. 93-3386
• Citation: U.S. v. Darden, 70 F.3d 1507 (8th Cir. 1995)
• Parties: 43 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 321 UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Carlton DARDEN, Appellant. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Carla Simone SEALS, Appellant. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Michael WILLIAMS, Appellant. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Raymond AMERSON, Appellant. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Gerald Douglas HOPKINS, Appellant. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Jerry Lee LEWIS, Appellant. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Noble Laverne BENNETT, Appellant. to 93-3453 and 93-3456.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

Page 1507

70 F.3d 1507

43 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 321

UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v.Carlton DARDEN, Appellant.

UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v.Carla Simone SEALS, Appellant.

UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v.Michael WILLIAMS, Appellant.

UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v.Raymond AMERSON, Appellant.

UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v.Gerald Douglas HOPKINS, Appellant.

UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v.Jerry Lee LEWIS, Appellant.

UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v.Noble Laverne BENNETT, Appellant.

Nos. 93-3386, 93-3448, 93-3449, 93-3451 to 93-3453 and 93-3456.

United States Court of Appeals Eighth Circuit.

Submitted June 14, 1995.

Decided Nov. 22, 1995.

Counsel who presented argument on behalf of the appellantsSimon Pediel Tonkin, St. Louis, Missouri, argued (Joan E. Flesh, on the brief), for Darden.

Irene Jeanette Smith, St. Louis, Missouri, argued, for Seals.

Anita Rivkin-Carothers, Chicago, Illinois, argued, for Williams.

Alfred A. Speer, St. Louis, Missouri, argued, for Amerson.

Doris Gregory Black, St. Louis, Missouri, argued, for Lewis.

James M. Martin, St. Louis, Missouri, argued, for Bennett.

David L. Thornton, St. Louis, Missouri, argued, for Hopkins.

Michael K. Fagan, Assistant U.S. Attorney, St. Louis, Missouri, argued (Mary Jane Lyle, Dean R. Hoag, Daniel E. Meuleman, and Sam C. Bertolet, on the brief), for appellee.

Before BOWMAN, HEANEY, and MORRIS S. ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

BOWMAN, Circuit Judge.

The United States presented evidence at the appellants' trial tending to show that Jerry Lee Lewis participated in and became the leader of a powerful criminal racketeering enterprise that for over ten years controlled a large percentage of the market for T's and Blues (a heroin substitute), heroin, and cocaine in north St. Louis.Lewis obtained and maintained his position by murdering competitors and others who threatened his organization (the Jerry Lewis Organization or JLO).The profitable but bloody activities of the appellants in this case, all members of the JLO, were described by other JLO members who eventually cooperated with the government and whose testimony will be set out in detail as necessary throughout this opinion.In essence, the investigation and prosecution of Jerry Lee Lewis and his associates produced evidence of a long-term, violent drug-trafficking enterprise operating behind a facade known as Subordinate TempleNo. 1 of the Moorish Science Temple of America (MSTA).¹Jerry Lee Lewis held the position of Grand Sheik in the MSTA, and the membership of the JLO and the MSTA overlapped.A large number of MSTA/JLO members were arrested when a grand jury handed down the initial indictment in this case in January 1991.A superseding indictment was handed down in September 1992, and the trial of the seven appellants in this case and two other defendants began on October 28, 1992.

After a trial lasting almost nine months, one of the longest criminal trials in the history of the Eastern District of Missouri, a jury returned guilty verdicts against all seven appellants on one count of conducting a criminal racketeering enterprise in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1962(c)(1988), against six appellants(all but Noble Laverne Bennett) on one count of conspiring to conduct and participate in the same criminal racketeering enterprise in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1962(d), against Jerry Lee Lewis on six counts of committing violent crimes (murder, conspiracy to commit murder, and attempted murder) in aid of a racketeering enterprise in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1959, and against Raymond Amerson on two counts of committing violent crimes (murder and conspiracy to commit murder) in aid of a racketeering enterprise in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1959.Two co-defendants were acquitted.The District Court² sentenced each appellant to life in prison.

On appeal, Jerry Lee Lewis and Noble Laverne Bennett challenge only their convictions while Carlton Darden, Carla Simone Seals, Michael Williams, Raymond Amerson, and Gerald Hopkins challenge both their convictions and their sentences.Appellants, in seven separate briefs running over 620 pages, properly raise forty-two issues.³The government's brief runs 336 pages.Because of the lengthy trial, the complexity of the case, and the sheer size of the record, we have accepted these overlength filings.For the reasons stated below, we affirm the convictions of all seven appellants and the sentences of Darden, Seals, Williams, Amerson, and Hopkins.

I.

All of the appellants argue that the District Court should have granted their motions for a judgment of acquittal on Counts I and II because the evidence does not support the jury's verdicts.When evaluating a claim of insufficient evidence, this Court considers "the evidence in the light most favorable to the guilty verdict, giving the government the benefit of all reasonable inferences that might be drawn from the evidence."United States v. Fregoso, 60 F.3d 1314, 1322(8th Cir.1995)(quotingUnited States v. Smith, 32 F.3d 1291, 1292(8th Cir.1994)).We will reverse a conviction for insufficient evidence and order the entry of a judgment of acquittal only if no construction of the evidence exists to support the jury's verdict.United States v. Parker, 32 F.3d 395, 399(8th Cir.1994).

In this case, the government charged all seven appellants with one count of conducting a criminal racketeering enterprise in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1962(c)(1988)(Count I) and one count of conspiring to conduct and participate in the same criminal racketeering enterprise in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1962(d) alleged in Count I (Count II).These activities were alleged to have taken place between April 1978 and September 1992.All seven appellants were convicted on Count I.The jury acquitted Noble Bennett on Count II but convicted the other six appellants.

To establish the elements of a substantive RICO offense (Count I), the government must prove (1) that an enterprise existed; (2) that the enterprise affected interstate or foreign commerce; (3) that the defendant associated with the enterprise; (4) that the defendant participated, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of the affairs of the enterprise; and (5) that the defendant participated in the enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity by committing at least two racketeering (predicate) acts.United States v. Bennett, 44 F.3d 1364, 1374(8th Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, ----, 115 S.Ct. 2279, 2585, 132 L.Ed.2d 282, 833(1995), and cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 116 S.Ct. 98, 133 L.Ed.2d 52(1995).To establish the charge of conspiracy to violate the RICOstatute(Count II), the government must prove, in addition to elements one, two, and three described immediately above, that the defendant"objectively manifested an agreement to participate ... in the affairs of [the] enterprise."Id.(quotingUnited States v. Phillips, 664 F.2d 971, 1012(5th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 457 U.S. 1136, 102 S.Ct. 2965, 73 L.Ed.2d 1354and459 U.S. 906, 103 S.Ct. 208, 74 L.Ed.2d 166(1982)).Proof of an express agreement is not required; "the government need only establish a tacit understanding between the parties, and this may be shown wholly through the circumstantial evidence of [each defendant's] actions."Fregoso, 60 F.3d at 1325.

Appellants argue that the evidence was insufficient to prove (1) the single enterprise charged by the government and (2) an enterprise with a structure distinct from the structure necessary to commit the predicate acts charged.Appellants Darden, Seals, Amerson, and Hopkins argue that the evidence is insufficient to prove that each of them was associated with the enterprise charged in the indictment.Appellant Lewis argues that the evidence is insufficient to prove that he managed, supervised, or directed the criminal racketeering enterprise charged in the indictment.We also address in this section a number of additional arguments concerning the sufficiency of the evidence as well as several related issues.

A.Evidence of a Single Enterprise

Appellants argue that the evidence failed to establish the single enterprise charged in the indictment but instead established two parallel enterprises that eventually merged into a third enterprise.The government, on the other hand, argues that the JLO existed throughout the time frame alleged in the indictment and that other individuals, including Noble Bennett, associated with the JLO for specific, short-term criminal activities.The government concedes that during part of the time frame alleged in the indictment Noble Bennett headed his own criminal enterprise.After Bennett's enterprise failed, however, its members, including Bennett, joined the JLO.To determine whether multiple conspiracies exist when a single large conspiracy has been charged by the government, this Court considers the totality of the circumstances, "including the nature of the activities involved, the location where the alleged events of the conspiracy took place, the identity of the conspirators involved, and the time frame in which the acts occurred."United States v. Bascope-Zurita, 68 F.3d 1057, 1061(8th Cir.Oct. 13, 1995).We conclude that the evidence overwhelmingly supports the conclusion that only one conspiracy existed throughout the time frame alleged in the indictment, although personnel varied.

The indictment in this case alleged that twenty-four named individuals (nine defendants, including the seven appellants, and fifteen unindicted co-conspirators) had associated in fact for the purpose of (1) obtaining an income from the distribution of cocaine, heroin, and marijuana; (2) protecting and preserving the distribution enterprise from competition and interference from law enforcement; and (3) promoting the enterprise and its activities.Superseding Indictmentat 3.The indictment alleged that these individuals "committed acts of criminal...