Supreme Court of the United States · 2009-06-08
18usc1962: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA1, neov2/qa/cases-v1-QA1.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed
Case and law context
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; claim: (c),(d)
Uncertainty
opinion: the IR appends ALL footnotes after the dissent's last line: the majority's nn. 1-5 (@31440..35669), then the dissent's nn. 1-3 (@35670..38087). Each is declared as a second span of its own opinion; the attribution is by content ("The dissent claims…" vs "ante, at 942-943, n. 1"), not by any marker in the IR.
Element enterprise: decider: the verdict is general; that the jury found THIS element on THESE facts is an inference from the conviction and from the Court's "sufficient to prove" summary of the evidence.
Element enterprise: polarity: @1442..1640 (no leader, hierarchy or master plan) is [neutral] because this Court holds those features are not required; for the jury that weighed it, and for the dissent, it cuts against. v1 had [cuts-against].
Element enterprise: basis: [proved] is the jury's; "found under an instruction this Court approved" has no basis value of its own (review instruction-approved carries it).
Element enterprise.distinct-from-pattern: holding: the Court held the instruction "properly conveyed" the relation; it did not hold the relation met on this record, hence not-reached / rule-announced rather than satisfied.
Misfit
A general verdict covers every element of the count, but only `enterprise` is written as a jury finding (the only element whose facts the Court recites); association / conduct / pattern / racketeering stay bare not-reached although the same verdict necessarily found them. No construct says "the jury found count (c) as a whole; this Court reviewed element X only".
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 neither the .case notation nor v1.1 `cites` can point at a `not-required` line.
Dissent (Stevens, Breyer: enterprise limited to "businesslike entities" with an existence apart from the predicate acts; instruction deficient and evidence insufficient) is now a declared opinion (`dis`, body + its footnotes), but no block is `by dis`: no dissent quote was captured in v1 and the quote set is frozen.
Majority footnotes (n. 4 hypothetical of uncoordinated independent offenders = a pattern without an enterprise; n. 5 "the two elements [do not] collapse into one") are inside the majority's second span and quotable in v1.1, but unquoted for the same reason.
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
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)) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Boyle v. United States — 556 U.S. 938 (2009) · Supreme Court of the United States · 2009 (18usc1962: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA1, neov2/qa/cases-v1-QA1.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | ○ not reached · basis not recordedNot counted: rule-announced/merits | ○ not reached · basis not recordedNot counted: rule-announced/merits | ○ not reached · basis not recordedNot counted: rule-announced/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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Boyle v. United States — 556 U.S. 938 (2009) · Supreme Court of the United States · 2009 (18usc1962: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA1, neov2/qa/cases-v1-QA1.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed |
Elements 19–19 of 19
| Case | Parol evidence rule raised to bar extrinsic evidence of fraudulent misrepresentations |
|---|---|
| Boyle v. United States — 556 U.S. 938 (2009) · Supreme Court of the United States · 2009 (18usc1962: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA1, neov2/qa/cases-v1-QA1.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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Boyle v. United States — 556 U.S. 938 (2009) · Supreme Court of the United States · 2009 — not reached (18usc1962: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA1, neov2/qa/cases-v1-QA1.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) | Defendant employed by or associated with the enterprise (§ 1962(c)) | not_reached Excluded from merits counts rule-announced / merits claim: (c),(d) | Unspecified route | No source quotation recorded for this block. |
| Boyle v. United States — 556 U.S. 938 (2009) · Supreme Court of the United States · 2009 — not reached (18usc1962: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA1, neov2/qa/cases-v1-QA1.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 rule-announced / merits claim: (c),(d) | Unspecified route | No source quotation recorded for this block. |
| Boyle v. United States — 556 U.S. 938 (2009) · Supreme Court of the United States · 2009 — not reached (18usc1962: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA1, neov2/qa/cases-v1-QA1.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 rule-announced / merits claim: (c),(d); count: § 1962(d) RICO conspiracy count; subject: count=§ 1962(d) RICO conspiracy count (d) conviction stands with the (c) conviction; discussed only to reject the argument that the Court's reading merges (c) with §371 or (d). | Unspecified route | No source quotation recorded for this block. |
| Boyle v. United States — 556 U.S. 938 (2009) · Supreme Court of the United States · 2009 — satisfied · proved (18usc1962: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA1, neov2/qa/cases-v1-QA1.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) | Enterprise (§ 1961(4)): legal entity or association-in-fact | satisfied Excluded from merits counts applied / lower-court basis: proved; claim: (c),(d); party: the bank-theft crew: a core group plus occasional recruits (the alleged association-in-fact enterprise); Edmund Boyle (defendant; petitioner); count: § 1962(c) substantive RICO count; § 1962(d) RICO conspiracy count; subject: party=the bank-theft crew: a core group plus occasional recruits (the alleged association-in-fact enterprise); Edmund Boyle (defendant; petitioner); count=§ 1962(c) substantive RICO count; § 1962(d) RICO conspiracy count The jury's finding: a leaderless, informally organised crew WAS an enterprise; conviction affirmed. This Court approved the instruction under which the jury found it and did not review sufficiency (certiorari limited); the facts are what the trial evidence "was sufficient to prove". v1 history: `satisfied [proved]` in v0, demoted to not-reached by QA2 because this Court reviewed only the instruction; v1.1 restores it as a finding-below. | informal-crew | 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.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_556.jsonl#/us/556/0938-01; Unicode character offsets [692:929] (end exclusive); SHA-256 99ef954d45808712c583df14cb17e97e5d92bb262b6755f45cc77de65f9c6a51.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.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_556.jsonl#/us/556/0938-01; Unicode character offsets [1125:1441] (end exclusive); SHA-256 99ef954d45808712c583df14cb17e97e5d92bb262b6755f45cc77de65f9c6a51.From 1991 to 1994, the core group was responsible for more than 30 night-deposit-box thefts.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_556.jsonl#/us/556/0938-01; Unicode character offsets [1641:1733] (end exclusive); SHA-256 99ef954d45808712c583df14cb17e97e5d92bb262b6755f45cc77de65f9c6a51. |
| Boyle v. United States — 556 U.S. 938 (2009) · Supreme Court of the United States · 2009 — not reached (18usc1962: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA1, neov2/qa/cases-v1-QA1.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) | Enterprise (§ 1961(4)): legal entity or association-in-fact | not_reached Excluded from merits counts rule-announced / merits claim: (c),(d); party: the bank-theft crew: a core group plus occasional recruits (the alleged association-in-fact enterprise); subject: party=the bank-theft crew: a core group plus occasional recruits (the alleged association-in-fact enterprise) This Court's own ruling (rule-announced): no leader, hierarchy, name, fixed roles or master plan is required; purpose + relationships + longevity suffice. The test is stated and the instruction measured against it; it is not applied to the evidence. | informal-crew | 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 purposeSource: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_556.jsonl#/us/556/0938-01; Unicode character offsets [7754:7989] (end exclusive); SHA-256 99ef954d45808712c583df14cb17e97e5d92bb262b6755f45cc77de65f9c6a51.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.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_556.jsonl#/us/556/0938-01; Unicode character offsets [11974:12176] (end exclusive); SHA-256 99ef954d45808712c583df14cb17e97e5d92bb262b6755f45cc77de65f9c6a51.The instructions the District Court Judge gave to the jury in this case were correct and adequate.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_556.jsonl#/us/556/0938-01; Unicode character offsets [16941:17039] (end exclusive); SHA-256 99ef954d45808712c583df14cb17e97e5d92bb262b6755f45cc77de65f9c6a51. |
| Boyle v. United States — 556 U.S. 938 (2009) · Supreme Court of the United States · 2009 — not reached (18usc1962: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA1, neov2/qa/cases-v1-QA1.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) | Enterprise as an element distinct from the pattern of racketeering activity | not_reached Excluded from merits counts rule-announced / merits claim: (c),(d) 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. | distinct-from-pattern/inferable-from-pattern-evidence | 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.”Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_556.jsonl#/us/556/0938-01; Unicode character offsets [10143:10299] (end exclusive); SHA-256 99ef954d45808712c583df14cb17e97e5d92bb262b6755f45cc77de65f9c6a51.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 incorrectSource: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_556.jsonl#/us/556/0938-01; Unicode character offsets [10338:10558] (end exclusive); SHA-256 99ef954d45808712c583df14cb17e97e5d92bb262b6755f45cc77de65f9c6a51.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.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_556.jsonl#/us/556/0938-01; Unicode character offsets [18075:18305] (end exclusive); SHA-256 99ef954d45808712c583df14cb17e97e5d92bb262b6755f45cc77de65f9c6a51. |
| Boyle v. United States — 556 U.S. 938 (2009) · Supreme Court of the United States · 2009 — not reached (18usc1962: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA1, neov2/qa/cases-v1-QA1.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 rule-announced / merits claim: (c),(d) Pattern (bank burglaries / night-deposit-box thefts) was found by the jury and not challenged in this Court. | Unspecified route | No source quotation recorded for this block. |
| Boyle v. United States — 556 U.S. 938 (2009) · Supreme Court of the United States · 2009 — not reached (18usc1962: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA1, neov2/qa/cases-v1-QA1.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 rule-announced / merits claim: (c),(d) | Unspecified route | No source quotation recorded for this block. |
Court interpretations recorded from this case
interpretation
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
Boyle v. United States — 556 U.S. 938 (2009) · Supreme Court of the United States · 2009 (18usc1962: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA1, neov2/qa/cases-v1-QA1.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed)
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 purposeSource:
docroot/ir/caselaw/us_556.jsonl#/us/556/0938-01; Unicode character offsets [7754:7989] (end exclusive); SHA-256 99ef954d45808712c583df14cb17e97e5d92bb262b6755f45cc77de65f9c6a51.Turkette and Boyle govern association-in-fact enterprises: purpose + relationships among associates + longevity sufficient to pursue the purpose.
interpretation
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.
Boyle v. United States — 556 U.S. 938 (2009) · Supreme Court of the United States · 2009 (18usc1962: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA1, neov2/qa/cases-v1-QA1.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed)
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.Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/us_556.jsonl#/us/556/0938-01; Unicode character offsets [11974:12176] (end exclusive); SHA-256 99ef954d45808712c583df14cb17e97e5d92bb262b6755f45cc77de65f9c6a51.Turkette and Boyle govern association-in-fact enterprises: purpose + relationships among associates + longevity sufficient to pursue the purpose.
interpretation
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.”
Boyle v. United States — 556 U.S. 938 (2009) · Supreme Court of the United States · 2009 (18usc1962: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA1, neov2/qa/cases-v1-QA1.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed)
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.”Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/us_556.jsonl#/us/556/0938-01; Unicode character offsets [10143:10299] (end exclusive); SHA-256 99ef954d45808712c583df14cb17e97e5d92bb262b6755f45cc77de65f9c6a51.Boyle's operative rule is that enterprise and pattern remain distinct elements, while an association-in-fact needs purpose, relationships, and longevity rather than an additional structure requirement.
interpretation
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
Boyle v. United States — 556 U.S. 938 (2009) · Supreme Court of the United States · 2009 (18usc1962: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA1, neov2/qa/cases-v1-QA1.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed)
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 incorrectSource:
docroot/ir/caselaw/us_556.jsonl#/us/556/0938-01; Unicode character offsets [10338:10558] (end exclusive); SHA-256 99ef954d45808712c583df14cb17e97e5d92bb262b6755f45cc77de65f9c6a51.Boyle's operative rule is that enterprise and pattern remain distinct elements, while an association-in-fact needs purpose, relationships, and longevity rather than an additional structure requirement.
interpretation
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.”
Boyle v. United States — 556 U.S. 938 (2009) · Supreme Court of the United States · 2009 (18usc1962: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA1, neov2/qa/cases-v1-QA1.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed)
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.”Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/us_556.jsonl#/us/556/0938-01; Unicode character offsets [10143:10299] (end exclusive); SHA-256 99ef954d45808712c583df14cb17e97e5d92bb262b6755f45cc77de65f9c6a51.Enterprise and pattern of racketeering activity are distinct elements, but the same trial evidence may support inferring both.
interpretation
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
Boyle v. United States — 556 U.S. 938 (2009) · Supreme Court of the United States · 2009 (18usc1962: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA1, neov2/qa/cases-v1-QA1.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed)
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 incorrectSource:
docroot/ir/caselaw/us_556.jsonl#/us/556/0938-01; Unicode character offsets [10338:10558] (end exclusive); SHA-256 99ef954d45808712c583df14cb17e97e5d92bb262b6755f45cc77de65f9c6a51.Enterprise and pattern of racketeering activity are distinct elements, but the same trial evidence may support inferring both.