United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2007-06-12
18usc1962: author: Fable · historical QA: FIX (QA2, neov2/qa/cases-QA2.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed
Case and law context
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; claim: (d)
Uncertainty
None recorded
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.
`result` has no good value: prosecution wins the interlocutory appeal (trial may proceed) but nothing under § 1962 is decided; used not-decided.
Holding is expressly provisional/conditional (defense may be re-raised after trial if proof overlaps too much); no construct for a contingent holding.
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.
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.
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.
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.
OCR damage is heavy in this record ("accom-pushing", "Gala-brese", "the Street Crew" with the name dropped); quotes kept as-is.
B · Case × element grid
Top-level elements follow claim order in panels of up to six elements. Case rows repeat across panels. Every recorded block retains its holding and basis; multiple blocks are not merged into a case-level verdict. ✓ satisfied · ✗ not satisfied · ○ not reached · · not addressed. Muted blocks are not counted. Sub-element evidence remains on case and element pages.
Elements 1–6 of 19
| Case | Culpable person (§ 1961(3)) distinct from the enterprise under (c) | Pattern of racketeering activity (§ 1961(5)): at least two predicate acts with relatedness and continuity | Racketeering activity (§ 1961(1) enumerated state and federal predicate offenses) | Collection of an unlawful debt (§ 1961(6)) — alternative to pattern of racketeering activity | Use or investment of racketeering income in an enterprise (§ 1962(a)) | Enterprise (§ 1961(4)): legal entity or association-in-fact |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| United States v. Calabrese — 490 F.3d 575 (2007) · United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2007 (18usc1962: author: Fable · historical QA: FIX (QA2, neov2/qa/cases-QA2.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) | · not addressed | ○ not reached · basis not recordedNot counted: background/merits | ○ not reached · basis not recordedNot counted: background/merits | · not addressed | · not addressed | ○ not reached · basis not recordedNot counted: background/procedural |
Elements 7–12 of 19
| Case | Interstate or foreign commerce nexus | De minimis open-market securities investment proviso (§ 1962(a)) | Acquire or maintain interest in or control of an enterprise (§ 1962(b)) | Defendant employed by or associated with the enterprise (§ 1962(c)) | Conduct or participate in the conduct of enterprise affairs (§ 1962(c) operation or management test) | Conspiracy to violate § 1962(a), (b), or (c) (§ 1962(d)) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| United States v. Calabrese — 490 F.3d 575 (2007) · United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2007 (18usc1962: author: Fable · historical QA: FIX (QA2, neov2/qa/cases-QA2.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | ○ not reached · basis not recordedNot counted: background/merits | ○ not reached · basis not recordedNot counted: background/merits |
Elements 13–18 of 19
| Case | Civil RICO injury to business or property (18 U.S.C. § 1964(c)) | But-for and proximate causation ("by reason of", 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c)) | Statute of limitations (4-year civil under Agency Holding; 5-year criminal under 18 U.S.C. § 3282) | Claim preclusion / release by prior class-action settlement | Civil aiding and abetting a RICO violation (rejected as a private cause of action) | Fifth Amendment Double Jeopardy bar against successive RICO conspiracy/substantive prosecutions |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| United States v. Calabrese — 490 F.3d 575 (2007) · United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2007 (18usc1962: author: Fable · historical QA: FIX (QA2, neov2/qa/cases-QA2.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) | · not addressed | · not addressed | ○ not reached · basis not recordedNot counted: background/merits | · not addressed | · not addressed | ✗ not · pleadedNot counted: applied/procedural |
Elements 19–19 of 19
| Case | Parol evidence rule raised to bar extrinsic evidence of fraudulent misrepresentations |
|---|---|
| United States v. Calabrese — 490 F.3d 575 (2007) · United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2007 (18usc1962: author: Fable · historical QA: FIX (QA2, neov2/qa/cases-QA2.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) | · not addressed |
Instances and excluded annotation blocks
| Case | Element | Holding and scope | Pattern | Exact source quotations |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| United States v. Calabrese — 490 F.3d 575 (2007) · United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2007 — not reached (18usc1962: author: Fable · historical QA: FIX (QA2, neov2/qa/cases-QA2.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) | Conduct or participate in the conduct of enterprise affairs (§ 1962(c) operation or management test) | not_reached Excluded from merits counts background / merits claim: (d) | Unspecified route | No source quotation recorded for this block. |
| United States v. Calabrese — 490 F.3d 575 (2007) · United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2007 — not reached (18usc1962: author: Fable · historical QA: FIX (QA2, neov2/qa/cases-QA2.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) | Conspiracy to violate § 1962(a), (b), or (c) (§ 1962(d)) | not_reached Excluded from merits counts background / merits claim: (d) 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. | Unspecified route | 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.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_490.jsonl#/f3d/490/0575-01; Unicode character offsets [6868:7025] (end exclusive); SHA-256 d3f7952bc44164fe54f852372a101a8e7a1d40c97a01f7a57d5fb26c65d9e235. |
| United States v. Calabrese — 490 F.3d 575 (2007) · United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2007 — not reached (18usc1962: author: Fable · historical QA: FIX (QA2, neov2/qa/cases-QA2.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) | Enterprise (§ 1961(4)): legal entity or association-in-fact | not_reached Excluded from merits counts background / procedural claim: (d); 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); subject: 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) 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. 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". | organized-crime-parent-distinct-from-its-street-crews | The two street crews are components of the "Chicago Outfit," the lineal descendant of Al Capone's gangSource: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_490.jsonl#/f3d/490/0575-01; Unicode character offsets [1336:1438] (end exclusive); SHA-256 d3f7952bc44164fe54f852372a101a8e7a1d40c97a01f7a57d5fb26c65d9e235.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.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_490.jsonl#/f3d/490/0575-01; Unicode character offsets [1010:1246] (end exclusive); SHA-256 d3f7952bc44164fe54f852372a101a8e7a1d40c97a01f7a57d5fb26c65d9e235.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.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_490.jsonl#/f3d/490/0575-01; Unicode character offsets [10692:10893] (end exclusive); SHA-256 d3f7952bc44164fe54f852372a101a8e7a1d40c97a01f7a57d5fb26c65d9e235.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.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_490.jsonl#/f3d/490/0575-01; Unicode character offsets [7026:7175] (end exclusive); SHA-256 d3f7952bc44164fe54f852372a101a8e7a1d40c97a01f7a57d5fb26c65d9e235. |
| United States v. Calabrese — 490 F.3d 575 (2007) · United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2007 — not reached (18usc1962: author: Fable · historical QA: FIX (QA2, neov2/qa/cases-QA2.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) | Pattern of racketeering activity (§ 1961(5)): at least two predicate acts with relatedness and continuity | not_reached Excluded from merits counts background / merits claim: (d) Overlap of predicate acts between the old and new patterns is discussed only as a double-jeopardy factor; no trimming of overlapping acts ordered. | Unspecified route | No source quotation recorded for this block. |
| United States v. Calabrese — 490 F.3d 575 (2007) · United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2007 — not reached (18usc1962: author: Fable · historical QA: FIX (QA2, neov2/qa/cases-QA2.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) | Racketeering activity (§ 1961(1) enumerated state and federal predicate offenses) | not_reached Excluded from merits counts background / merits claim: (d) | Unspecified route | No source quotation recorded for this block. |
| United States v. Calabrese — 490 F.3d 575 (2007) · United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2007 — not · pleaded (18usc1962: author: Fable · historical QA: FIX (QA2, neov2/qa/cases-QA2.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) | Fifth Amendment Double Jeopardy bar against successive RICO conspiracy/substantive prosecutions | not Excluded from merits counts applied / procedural basis: pleaded; claim: (d); 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; subject: 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 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. | successive-rico-conspiracy/different-enterprise-parent-organization-vs-subunit | 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.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_490.jsonl#/f3d/490/0575-01; Unicode character offsets [345:691] (end exclusive); SHA-256 d3f7952bc44164fe54f852372a101a8e7a1d40c97a01f7a57d5fb26c65d9e235.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.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_490.jsonl#/f3d/490/0575-01; Unicode character offsets [1510:1755] (end exclusive); SHA-256 d3f7952bc44164fe54f852372a101a8e7a1d40c97a01f7a57d5fb26c65d9e235.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.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_490.jsonl#/f3d/490/0575-01; Unicode character offsets [1917:2277] (end exclusive); SHA-256 d3f7952bc44164fe54f852372a101a8e7a1d40c97a01f7a57d5fb26c65d9e235.Some of the predicate acts occurred after the offense periods charged in the earlier prosecutions, but others occurred before or during those periods.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_490.jsonl#/f3d/490/0575-01; Unicode character offsets [2278:2428] (end exclusive); SHA-256 d3f7952bc44164fe54f852372a101a8e7a1d40c97a01f7a57d5fb26c65d9e235.These would be different conspiracies and hence different crimes even if the acts constituting the pattern of racketeering activity overlapped.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_490.jsonl#/f3d/490/0575-01; Unicode character offsets [7799:7942] (end exclusive); SHA-256 d3f7952bc44164fe54f852372a101a8e7a1d40c97a01f7a57d5fb26c65d9e235.What the government may not do is “reprose-cute a defendant for the same offense whenever it obtains broader evidence of criminal culpability.”Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_490.jsonl#/f3d/490/0575-01; Unicode character offsets [8457:8600] (end exclusive); SHA-256 d3f7952bc44164fe54f852372a101a8e7a1d40c97a01f7a57d5fb26c65d9e235.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.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_490.jsonl#/f3d/490/0575-01; Unicode character offsets [10144:10473] (end exclusive); SHA-256 d3f7952bc44164fe54f852372a101a8e7a1d40c97a01f7a57d5fb26c65d9e235.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.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_490.jsonl#/f3d/490/0575-01; Unicode character offsets [15999:16123] (end exclusive); SHA-256 d3f7952bc44164fe54f852372a101a8e7a1d40c97a01f7a57d5fb26c65d9e235. |
| United States v. Calabrese — 490 F.3d 575 (2007) · United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2007 — not reached (18usc1962: author: Fable · historical QA: FIX (QA2, neov2/qa/cases-QA2.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) | Statute of limitations (4-year civil under Agency Holding; 5-year criminal under 18 U.S.C. § 3282) | not_reached Excluded from merits counts background / merits claim: (d) 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. | Unspecified route | No source quotation recorded for this block. |
Court interpretations recorded from this case
interpretation
These would be different conspiracies and hence different crimes even if the acts constituting the pattern of racketeering activity overlapped.
United States v. Calabrese — 490 F.3d 575 (2007) · United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2007 (18usc1962: author: Fable · historical QA: FIX (QA2, neov2/qa/cases-QA2.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed)
These would be different conspiracies and hence different crimes even if the acts constituting the pattern of racketeering activity overlapped.Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_490.jsonl#/f3d/490/0575-01; Unicode character offsets [7799:7942] (end exclusive); SHA-256 d3f7952bc44164fe54f852372a101a8e7a1d40c97a01f7a57d5fb26c65d9e235.Evaluated under a totality-of-the-circumstances five-factor test (time, persons, statutory offenses, overt acts/predicates, locus/enterprise) to determine whether two indictments charge the same enterprise/conspiracy.
interpretation
What the government may not do is “reprose-cute a defendant for the same offense whenever it obtains broader evidence of criminal culpability.”
United States v. Calabrese — 490 F.3d 575 (2007) · United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2007 (18usc1962: author: Fable · historical QA: FIX (QA2, neov2/qa/cases-QA2.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed)
What the government may not do is “reprose-cute a defendant for the same offense whenever it obtains broader evidence of criminal culpability.”Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_490.jsonl#/f3d/490/0575-01; Unicode character offsets [8457:8600] (end exclusive); SHA-256 d3f7952bc44164fe54f852372a101a8e7a1d40c97a01f7a57d5fb26c65d9e235.Evaluated under a totality-of-the-circumstances five-factor test (time, persons, statutory offenses, overt acts/predicates, locus/enterprise) to determine whether two indictments charge the same enterprise/conspiracy.