Source: cases/18usc1962/us-556-938-boyle-v-united-states.case
Case source: https://www.neochart.com/catalog/cases/us/volume_556/0938_01/index.html
an association-in-fact enterprise must have at least three structural features: a purpose, relationships among those associated with the enterprise, and longevity sufficient to permit these associates to pursue the enterprise’s purpose
Such a group need not have a hierarchical structure or a “chain of command”; decisions may be made on an ad hoc basis and by any number of methods — by majority vote, consensus, a show of strength, etc.
The instructions the District Court Judge gave to the jury in this case were correct and adequate.
the existence of an enterprise is an element distinct from the pattern of racketeering activity and “proof of one does not necessarily establish the other.”
if the phrase is used to mean that the existence of an enterprise may never be inferred from the evidence showing that persons associated with the enterprise engaged in a pattern of racketeering activity, it is incorrect
This instruction properly conveyed the point we made in Turkette that proof of a pattern of racketeering activity may be sufficient in a particular case to permit a jury to infer the existence of an assoeiation-in-fact enterprise.
casedsl 1 case /us/556/0938-01 name Boyle v. United States cite 556 U.S. 938 (2009) court Supreme Court of the United States date 2009-06-08 url catalog/cases/us/volume_556/0938_01/index.html source ir/caselaw/us_556.jsonl sha1=a0aebb1c9a95a523d897ada00f6ab6b2dd9a748e chars=38087 law 18usc1962 (c),(d) role rule-announced posture criminal; jury conviction on (c) and (d) counts affirmed by CA2 in summary order; certiorari limited to the jury instruction defining an association-in-fact enterprise result claimant-won element enterprise : not-reached party the bank-theft crew (core group plus occasional recruits) variant association-in-fact/informal-crew fact @692..929 [supports] | Petitioner and others participated in a series of bank thefts in New York, New Jersey, Ohio, and Wisconsin during the 1990’s. The participants in these crimes included a core group, along with others who were recruited from time to time. fact @1125..1441 [supports] | Each theft was typically carried out by a group of participants who met beforehand to plan the crime, gather tools (such as crowbars, fishing gaffs, and walkie-talkies), and assign the roles that each participant would play (such as lookout and driver). The participants generally split the proceeds from the thefts. fact @1442..1640 [cuts-against] | The group was loosely and informally organized. It does not appear to have had a leader or hierarchy; nor does it appear that the participants ever formulated any long-term master plan or agreement. fact @1641..1733 [supports] | From 1991 to 1994, the core group was responsible for more than 30 night-deposit-box thefts. rule @7754..7989 | an association-in-fact enterprise must have at least three structural features: a purpose, relationships among those associated with the enterprise, and longevity sufficient to permit these associates to pursue the enterprise’s purpose rule @11974..12176 | Such a group need not have a hierarchical structure or a “chain of command”; decisions may be made on an ad hoc basis and by any number of methods — by majority vote, consensus, a show of strength, etc. held @16941..17039 | The instructions the District Court Judge gave to the jury in this case were correct and adequate. gloss No leader, hierarchy, name, fixed roles or master plan; purpose + relationships + longevity suffice. The Court decides the instruction, not sufficiency; the facts are what the trial evidence "was sufficient to prove". gloss Was `satisfied [proved]` (QA2). The jury found the enterprise and the conviction stands, but certiorari was limited to the instruction; this Court approved the test and did not review sufficiency. element enterprise.distinct-from-pattern : not-reached variant distinct-from-pattern/inferable-from-pattern-evidence rule @10143..10299 | the existence of an enterprise is an element distinct from the pattern of racketeering activity and “proof of one does not necessarily establish the other.” rule @10338..10558 | if the phrase is used to mean that the existence of an enterprise may never be inferred from the evidence showing that persons associated with the enterprise engaged in a pattern of racketeering activity, it is incorrect held @18075..18305 | This instruction properly conveyed the point we made in Turkette that proof of a pattern of racketeering activity may be sufficient in a particular case to permit a jury to infer the existence of an assoeiation-in-fact enterprise. gloss Enterprise and pattern are separate elements, but the same evidence may prove both; no "ascertainable structure beyond that inherent in the pattern" instruction is required. element association : not-reached element conduct : not-reached element pattern : not-reached gloss Pattern (bank burglaries / night-deposit-box thefts) was found by the jury and not challenged in this Court. element racketeering : not-reached element conspiracy : not-reached gloss (d) conviction stands with the (c) conviction; discussed only to reject the argument that the Court's reading merges (c) with §371 or (d). misfit The jury's own finding (an informal crew with no leader or hierarchy WAS an enterprise; conviction affirmed) is a real instance of the fact pattern but is no longer visible as one: the block is rule-announced / not-reached because this Court reviewed only the instruction. A `scope lower-court` twin (`satisfied [proved]`) would need the same fact lines a second time; a quote line cannot belong to two blocks. misfit The second holding is a RELATION between two elements (enterprise vs. pattern: separate elements, overlapping proof); recorded under the dotted sub-id enterprise.distinct-from-pattern. The .law file now has constraint separate-elements-overlapping-proof(enterprise, pattern), but a .case block cannot attach to a constraint. misfit The most reusable content is a NEGATIVE checklist of what the element does not require (hierarchy, chain of command, fixed roles, name, meetings, dues, rules, discipline, initiation, sophistication); `rule` lines carry a slice of it and the .law side has `not-required`, but the .case notation has no "not-required feature" construct. misfit Dissent (Stevens, Breyer: enterprise limited to "businesslike entities" with an existence apart from the predicate acts) occupies roughly half of the text. v1 has `scope dissent`, but no dissent quote was captured and the quote set is frozen, so it is still not represented.