U.S. v. Thompson, s. 81-5176
Citation | 685 F.2d 993 |
Decision Date | 04 August 1982 |
Docket Number | 81-5490 and 81-5495,Nos. 81-5176,s. 81-5176 |
Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. William Aubrey THOMPSON, Thomas Edward Sisk and Charles Frederick Taylor, Defendants-Appellants. |
Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit) |
Henry A. Martin, Haile & Martin, W. Gary Blackburn, Barnett & Alagia, Robert C. Watson, Nashville, Tenn., for defendants-appellants.
Joe B. Brown, U. S. Atty., William Cohen, Asst. U. S. Atty., Nashville, Tenn., William C. Bryson, Chief, Appellate Section, Crim. Div., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., for plaintiff-appellee.
Before EDWARDS, Chief Judge, and LIVELY, ENGEL, KEITH, BROWN, * KENNEDY, MARTIN, JONES, CONTIE and KRUPANSKY, Circuit Judges. **
This case was heard en banc on April 26, 1982. The en banc hearing was preceded by a decision of a panel consisting of three thoughtful and experienced judges of this court who had reversed and vacated conditional pleas of guilty tendered by the three defendants in this case. The panel's reasoning was that the United States Attorney's indictment of these three individuals under the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1961 et seq. (1976), (popularly known as RICO), was fatally defective in the fact that it alleged that the "enterprise" referred to in the RICO statute was "The Office of Governor of the State of Tennessee." The panel held "RICO's remedial provisions show that government entities are neither appropriate nor intended RICO 'enterprises.' " U. S. v. Thompson, 669 F.2d 1143, 1148 (6th Cir. 1982).
Thus the issue presented on this appeal is: whether appellants' convictions and sentences on voluntary pleas of guilty must be invalidated by this court because, as appellants claim, the indictment under the RICO statute illegally alleged that "The Office of Governor" of the State of Tennessee was the "enterprise" which is an integral part of the RICO statute?
We answer this question in the negative. We do so on the basis of 1) the breadth of RICO's statutory language, 2) the unanimity of judicial precedent on this precise point in other circuits, all of which cases the United States Supreme Court has refused to review, and 3) the legislative history of the RICO statute.
We also, however, question the wisdom of continued employment of this form of indictment. The language of the RICO statute allows for but does not compel use of this device. We believe that
identifying "The Office of Governor" 1 (or for that matter any other governmental office) as the "enterprise" under RICO unnecessarily tends to disrupt comity in federal-state relationships and as we will show later in this opinion, the statute itself provides readily available unobjectionable substitute language.
This case was heard by the District Court and decided without trial because the three defendants pled guilty. Their pleas to one count of the indictment led to lengthy Rule 11 proceedings before the District Judge designed to test defendants' acquaintance with the allegations of the indictment and the voluntariness of their pleas. The sentences which were entered were in accordance with the terms of the plea agreement. This appeal is taken under an agreement involving the prosecution, the defendants and the court that the sentences would not become final until and unless the legality of the indictment as to the single issue presented here had been tested and affirmed.
THE FACTS (AS ALLEGED AND ADMITTED)
As a consequence, we recite the facts from the indictment-the factual validity of which each defendant admitted under oath in open court.
The indictment alleged that these three appellants (and two other defendants not involved in this appeal) conspired together (Count I) 2 to solicit and accept bribes for influencing the granting of pardons and paroles and delays or denials of extradition to persons who had been convicted of or charged with crime. Count II 3 detailed the specific illegal acts related in the preceding sentence. Appellants do not deny their participation in or the illegality of such conduct. Nor do they deny that such activities fall within the racketeering crimes defined by the RICO statute. They do contend with vigor that the indictment's identification of "The Office of Governor" as the "enterprise" referred to in RICO is both a misinterpretation of Congressional intent and an unconstitutional invasion of state authority.
This court has recently dealt with another attack upon the RICO statute and in its opinion has set forth the broad principles of statutory construction there (and here) involved.
In what follows, we quote from this court's opinion in United States v. Sutton, 642 F.2d 1001 (6th Cir. 1980), cert. denied, 453 U.S. 912, 101 S.Ct. 3144, 69 L.Ed.2d 995 (1981). The following material describes the breadth and inclusiveness of the RICO statute as adopted by Congress as we described it in Sutton. At various points, in italics, we interpolate so as to show the application of this statutory language to our present case:
'It shall be unlawful for any person employed by or associated with any enterprise engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce, to conduct or participate, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of such enterprise's affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity or collection of unlawful debt.'
18 U.S.C. § 1962(c) (1976).
"We have previously noted that the dispute in this case concerns the meaning of the term 'enterprise.' Enterprise is a common English word which, as indicated in Webster's Third New International Dictionary Unabridged, means:
'a. a plan or design for a venture or undertaking
'b. venture, undertaking, project; esp: an undertaking that is difficult, complicated, or has a strong element of risk
'c. a unit of economic organization or activity
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Liddell v. State of Mo.
...(8th Cir.1977). See also United States v. Kras, 409 U.S. 434, 443, 93 S.Ct. 631, 636, 34 L.Ed.2d 626 (1973); United States v. Thompson, 685 F.2d 993, 999 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1072, 103 S.Ct. 494, 74 L.Ed.2d 635 (1982).9 In addition, state law provided separate libraries, publi......
-
U.S. v. Qaoud
...may properly be charged as a RICO enterprise. United States v. Davis, 707 F.2d 880, 883 (6th Cir.1983); United States v. Thompson, 685 F.2d 993, 994-95 (6th Cir.1982) (en banc), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1072, 103 S.Ct. 494, 74 L.Ed.2d 635 The indictment in the case at bar alleges that the RIC......
-
U.S. v. Blandford
...constituted a RICO enterprise where defendants had used the office and their positions therein to secure bribes); United States v. Thompson, 685 F.2d 993, 998 (6th Cir.) (holding that reference to "The Office of Governor of Tennessee" as enterprise was permissible under RICO), cert. denied,......
-
US v. McDade
...M. McDade." Other courts have also held that political offices can be charged as RICO enterprises. See, e.g., United States v. Thompson, 685 F.2d 993 (6th Cir.1982) (en banc), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1072, 103 S.Ct. 494, 74 L.Ed.2d 635 (1983) (Office of the Governor of Tennessee); United Sta......
-
RACKETEER INFLUENCED AND CORRUPT ORGANIZATIONS
...acts—does not bar state prosecution of the predicate acts and thus does not violate the Tenth Amendment); United States v. Thompson, 685 F.2d 993, 1001 (6th Cir. 1982) (holding that naming “Office of the Governor” a RICO enterprise did not violate Tenth Amendment); United States 2021] RACK......
-
Racketeer influenced and corrupt organizations
...is unconstitutional as applied to a minor). 229. See United States v. Kehoe, 310 F.3d 579, 588 (8th Cir. 2002); United States v. Thompson, 685 F.2d 993, 1001 (6th Cir. 1982); United States v. Martino, 648 F.2d 367, 381 (5th Cir. 1981). 230. U.S. CONST. art. I, § 8, cl. 3. 231. See United St......
-
Racketeer influenced and corrupt organizations.
...vague ... the defendants are on adequate notice that they are committing crimes."). (231.) See United States v. Thompson, 685 F.2d 993, 1001 (6th Cir. 1982) (finding that naming "Office of the Governor" a RICO enterprise did not violate Tenth Amendment); United States v. Martino, 648 F.2d 3......
-
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
...the government does not violate the Equal Protection acts and thus does not violate the Tenth Amendment); United States v. Thompson, 685 F.2d 993, 1001 (6th Cir. 1982) (holding that naming the “Office of the Governor” a RICO enterprise did not violate Tenth Amendment); United States v. Mar......