Source: cases/18usc1962/f3d-490-575-united-states-v-calabrese.case
Case source: https://www.neochart.com/catalog/cases/f3d/volume_490/0575_01/index.html
These would be different conspiracies and hence different crimes even if the acts constituting the pattern of racketeering activity overlapped.
In this case the defendants are not only charged with a different conspiracy from what was charged in their previous prosecutions, but also charged with having conspired to conduct the affairs of the parent (the Outfit) by acts that are not identical to the acts charged in the first set of prosecutions, though there is overlap.
At this stage, we cannot know how great the overlap will be, and so we have no basis for forbidding the trial to go forward.
Of course, being an illegal enterprise, it cannot have formal subsidiaries, but if the street crews are functional subsidiaries, that should suffice for purposes of analyzing a double jeopardy defense.
The enterprise is the Chicago Outfit, and insofar as is known at this time, it is a different enterprise from the Carlisi and Calabrese street crews.
They are being charged with participating in a con- spiracy to operate an enterprise by means of criminal acts that include murder, arson, intimidation, etc.
casedsl 1
case /f3d/490/0575-01
name United States v. Calabrese
cite 490 F.3d 575 (2007)
court United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
date 2007-06-12
url catalog/cases/f3d/volume_490/0575_01/index.html
source ir/caselaw/f3d_490.jsonl sha1=2a74723741b36f7121f3e05aab80074b4c263549 chars=33963
law 18usc1962 (d)
role background
posture criminal; pretrial; two defendants previously convicted of RICO conspiracy take an interlocutory appeal from denial of their motion to dismiss a new RICO-conspiracy indictment on double-jeopardy grounds; affirmed (2-1 as to trimming overlapping predicate acts)
result not-decided
defense x-double-jeopardy : not-satisfied [pleaded]
role applied
scope procedural
party Marcello (1993 conviction, Carlisi Street Crew) and Calabrese (1997 guilty plea, Calabrese Street Crew)
count 2005 RICO-conspiracy indictment naming the Chicago Outfit as the enterprise
variant successive-rico-conspiracy/different-enterprise-parent-organization-vs-subunit
fact @345..691 [supports] | Marcello's claim is based on a 1992 indictment charging him and eight others with conspiring to conduct the affairs of the Carlisi Street Crew by means of numerous illegal acts between 1979 and 1990-acts such as extortion, intimidation, arson, conspiracy to commit murder, usury, witness tampering, and efforts to collect unlawful gambling debts.
fact @1510..1755 [cuts-against] | The new indictment charges our two defendants, along with seven others only one of whom was a defendant in the previous prosecutions, with conspiring to conduct the affairs of the Chicago Outfit itself through a pattern of racketeering activity.
fact @1917..2277 [cuts-against] | The predicate acts alleged include some of the criminal acts charged in the earlier indictments but also a number of criminal acts that were not charged, including many murders, usurious loans, incidents of witness tampering and other obstructions of justice, and travel in interstate commerce for the purpose of accom-pushing the Outfit's criminal objectives.
fact @2278..2428 [supports] | Some of the predicate acts occurred after the offense periods charged in the earlier prosecutions, but others occurred before or during those periods.
rule @7799..7942 | These would be different conspiracies and hence different crimes even if the acts constituting the pattern of racketeering activity overlapped.
rule @8457..8600 [quoted] | What the government may not do is “reprose-cute a defendant for the same offense whenever it obtains broader evidence of criminal culpability.”
held @10144..10473 | In this case the defendants are not only charged with a different conspiracy from what was charged in their previous prosecutions, but also charged with having conspired to conduct the affairs of the parent (the Outfit) by acts that are not identical to the acts charged in the first set of prosecutions, though there is overlap.
held @15999..16123 | At this stage, we cannot know how great the overlap will be, and so we have no basis for forbidding the trial to go forward.
gloss Offense unit of a RICO conspiracy = (enterprise, pattern). A different enterprise makes a different offense even with overlapping predicates. Provisional: defense may be renewed after trial if the proof turns out to differ only trivially/formally from the earlier cases.
element enterprise : not-reached
scope procedural
party the Chicago Outfit (enterprise charged in 2005) vs. the Carlisi and Calabrese street crews (enterprises in the earlier prosecutions)
theory identity of the enterprise across prosecutions (parent organization vs. component crews)
variant association-in-fact/organized-crime-parent-distinct-from-its-street-crews
fact @1336..1438 [supports] | The two street crews are components of the "Chicago Outfit," the lineal descendant of Al Capone's gang
fact @1010..1246 [supports] | the other appellant, was charged in a 1995 indictment, together with six others, with participation in a similar conspiracy, though the offense period was 1978 through 1992 and the enterprise was a different street crew-the Street Crew.
rule @10692..10893 | Of course, being an illegal enterprise, it cannot have formal subsidiaries, but if the street crews are functional subsidiaries, that should suffice for purposes of analyzing a double jeopardy defense.
held @7026..7175 | The enterprise is the Chicago Outfit, and insofar as is known at this time, it is a different enterprise from the Carlisi and Calabrese street crews.
gloss Not a holding that an enterprise exists (uncontested) but that enterprise A != enterprise B: parent criminal organization and its crews treated like parent corporation and subsidiaries. Dissent: crews are "branch offices", same enterprise.
gloss Was `satisfied [pleaded]` (QA2). Nothing about the enterprise element is decided: the court provisionally treats the charged Outfit as a different enterprise from the crews, for double-jeopardy purposes only. Fact polarity here is relative to "an enterprise distinct from the crews is charged".
element conspiracy : not-reached
gloss Charged offense is (d) conspiracy to violate (c); merits untried. The opinion decides only that the charged conspiracy is a separate offense from the earlier ones.
rule @6868..7025 | They are being charged with participating in a con- spiracy to operate an enterprise by means of criminal acts that include murder, arson, intimidation, etc.
element pattern : not-reached
gloss Overlap of predicate acts between the old and new patterns is discussed only as a double-jeopardy factor; no trimming of overlapping acts ordered.
element racketeering : not-reached
element conduct : not-reached
defense x-statute-of-limitations : not-reached
gloss Dictum: the 5-year limitation (18 U.S.C. § 3282) does not bar a RICO conspiracy resting on old predicate acts if the conspiracy continued into the limitations period.
misfit The opinion is about the Double Jeopardy Clause, not the elements of § 1962: it decides IDENTITY of offense across two prosecutions (same enterprise? same pattern?), a comparison between two instances of the statute. v1 keeps both substantive blocks out of the instance count (`scope procedural`), but none of the four citation roles fits well -- the statute is the charged offense and an element is discussed, yet nothing is applied or announced; `background` is the least wrong -- and the notation still models one instance: distinct(enterprise_2005, enterprise_1992/1995) has no form.
misfit `result` has no good value: prosecution wins the interlocutory appeal (trial may proceed) but nothing under § 1962 is decided; used not-decided.
misfit Holding is expressly provisional/conditional (defense may be re-raised after trial if proof overlaps too much); no construct for a contingent holding.
misfit Partial dissent (Wood, J.) would strike predicate acts within the earlier offense periods and finds the SAME enterprise (crews = branch offices); roughly half the text. v1 has `scope dissent`, but dissent quotes were deliberately not captured and the quote set is frozen, so the dissent is still not represented.
misfit Reasoning is by hypothetical and analogy (parent/subsidiary corporations, getaway driver at two banks, copyright res judicata); `rule` lines are embedded in hypotheticals rather than stated as tests. The multi-factor "totality of circumstances" overlap test appears only by citation.
misfit Not-reached `conspiracy` block carries a `rule` quote (the court's characterization of the charged offense) because there is no slot for "what is charged" separate from element holdings.
misfit Two double-jeopardy fact lines each mix both directions in one sentence (some predicate acts overlap the earlier indictments, others do not; some fall inside the earlier offense periods, others after): one polarity tag per line, tagged by the clause the sentence stresses.
misfit OCR damage is heavy in this record ("accom-pushing", "Gala-brese", "the Street Crew" with the name dropped); quotes kept as-is.