Relatedness of predicate acts (horizontal and vertical relatedness)

AND · 18usc1962:pattern.relatedness

Under H.J. Inc., predicate acts are related if they have the same or similar purposes, results, participants, victims, or methods of commission, or are interrelated by distinguishing characteristics and are not isolated events; in criminal enterprise cases (Weisman), vertical relatedness to the enterprise's affairs also links disparate predicates.

Exact element source

a pattern of racketeering activity
Source: docroot/ir/usc/title18.jsonl#title18_sec1962; Unicode character offsets [135:169] (end exclusive); SHA-256 6caae47f43b5ab0899b660616e298363bd36f9f540d915c2be11eb7126f5e27d.

Routes and case patterns

Curated routes and observed case patterns
RouteDefinitionMerits instance blocksDistinct merits casesExamples (up to 3 cases per count group)
_whole
accepted; 3 observed cases
The element is decided as a whole: the reasoning turns on no narrower doctrinal sub-question that distinguishes it from any other application of this element.2
Satisfied 2; not satisfied 0; excluded context 2
2

Midwest Grinding Co. v. Spitz — 976 F.2d 1016 (1992) · United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1992 — satisfied · conceded (18usc1962: author: Fable · QA: PASS (QA1, neov2/qa/cases-v1-QA1.md)) · applied/merits · counted
Pattern: relatedness/single-scheme-against-one-victim

United States v. Mathis — 932 F.3d 242 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2019 — satisfied · proved (18usc1962: author: Flash1 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) · applied/merits · counted
Pattern: twelve gang crimes by shifting combinations of members sharing purposes and violent methods

Excluded context examples:

United States v. Weisman — 624 F.2d 1118 (1980) · United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1980 — not reached · basis not recorded (18usc1962: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA2, neov2/qa/cases-QA2.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) · rule-announced/merits · not counted
Pattern: relatedness/supplied-by-common-enterprise

United States v. Weisman — 624 F.2d 1118 (1980) · United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1980 — satisfied · proved (18usc1962: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA2, neov2/qa/cases-QA2.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) · applied/alternative · not counted
Pattern: relatedness/same-perpetrator-victims-goal-and-methods

How courts decided this element

Annotation blocks, including explicitly excluded context
CaseElementHolding and scopePatternExact source quotations
United States v. Weisman — 624 F.2d 1118 (1980) · United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1980 — not reached (18usc1962: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA2, neov2/qa/cases-QA2.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed)Relatedness of predicate acts (horizontal and vertical relatedness)not_reached
Excluded from merits counts
rule-announced / merits

claim: (c); party: Weisman; subject: party=Weisman

Pre-H.J. Inc. rule: no act-to-act relatedness is required; each act need only relate to the enterprise's affairs and fall within ten years. Decided as review of the jury charge (refusal to give the defendant's relatedness instruction upheld): a proposed sub-requirement is rejected, not found satisfied.
relatedness/supplied-by-common-enterprise
The Theatre, from its inception until its collapse, was operated through a wide ranging pattern of fraud.
Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f2d_624.jsonl#/f2d/624/1118-01; Unicode character offsets [1892:1997] (end exclusive); SHA-256 9f02652be952ebf06fe5bc7850efdd6237ac4cd8110d7ce9690b75ad54eaa6ed.

Evidence kind: fact; polarity: supports; absent flag: 0; quoted-rule flag: 0 (1 = tagged; 0 = not tagged)

the statutory language does not expressly require that the predicate acts of racketeering be specifically “related” to each other and we find no affirmative evidence in the legislative history from which we should infer such a requirement
Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f2d_624.jsonl#/f2d/624/1118-01; Unicode character offsets [9856:10094] (end exclusive); SHA-256 9f02652be952ebf06fe5bc7850efdd6237ac4cd8110d7ce9690b75ad54eaa6ed.

Evidence kind: rule; polarity: not recorded; absent flag: 0; quoted-rule flag: 0 (1 = tagged; 0 = not tagged)

Thus, the enterprise itself supplies a significant unifying link between the various predicate acts specified in section 1961(1) that may constitute a “pattern of racketeering activity.”
Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f2d_624.jsonl#/f2d/624/1118-01; Unicode character offsets [10752:10938] (end exclusive); SHA-256 9f02652be952ebf06fe5bc7850efdd6237ac4cd8110d7ce9690b75ad54eaa6ed.

Evidence kind: rule; polarity: not recorded; absent flag: 0; quoted-rule flag: 0 (1 = tagged; 0 = not tagged)

Accordingly, we find no error in the court’s refusal to adopt Weisman’s extended definition of “pattern” in charging the jury.
Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f2d_624.jsonl#/f2d/624/1118-01; Unicode character offsets [12851:12977] (end exclusive); SHA-256 9f02652be952ebf06fe5bc7850efdd6237ac4cd8110d7ce9690b75ad54eaa6ed.

Evidence kind: held; polarity: not recorded; absent flag: 0; quoted-rule flag: 0 (1 = tagged; 0 = not tagged)

United States v. Weisman — 624 F.2d 1118 (1980) · United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1980 — satisfied · proved (18usc1962: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA2, neov2/qa/cases-QA2.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed)Relatedness of predicate acts (horizontal and vertical relatedness)satisfied
Excluded from merits counts
applied / alternative

basis: proved; claim: (c); party: Weisman; theory: act-to-act relatedness, if it were required; subject: party=Weisman; theory=act-to-act relatedness, if it were required

Footnote alternative: even under an act-to-act test the 1973 stock fraud and 1976-77 bankruptcy fraud were related (same perpetrator, victims, goal, methods). [proved]: on the trial evidence no jury could have found the acts unrelated.
relatedness/same-perpetrator-victims-goal-and-methods
Weisman was a perpetrator of all of the acts of fraud and all were undertaken during the conduct of the Theatre’s affairs.
Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f2d_624.jsonl#/f2d/624/1118-01; Unicode character offsets [50090:50212] (end exclusive); SHA-256 9f02652be952ebf06fe5bc7850efdd6237ac4cd8110d7ce9690b75ad54eaa6ed.

Evidence kind: fact; polarity: supports; absent flag: 0; quoted-rule flag: 0 (1 = tagged; 0 = not tagged)

Furthermore, the acts of stock fraud harmed legitimate investors in the Theatre and many of these same investors were again harmed when the later acts of bankruptcy fraud prevented the Theatre’s financial rehabilitation.
Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f2d_624.jsonl#/f2d/624/1118-01; Unicode character offsets [50213:50433] (end exclusive); SHA-256 9f02652be952ebf06fe5bc7850efdd6237ac4cd8110d7ce9690b75ad54eaa6ed.

Evidence kind: fact; polarity: supports; absent flag: 0; quoted-rule flag: 0 (1 = tagged; 0 = not tagged)

In light of the numerous similarities between the predicate acts of racketeering, we find appellant’s contention that a jury could find that the acts of racketeering activity he engaged in were sporadic and unrelated to be completely untenable.
Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f2d_624.jsonl#/f2d/624/1118-01; Unicode character offsets [50743:50987] (end exclusive); SHA-256 9f02652be952ebf06fe5bc7850efdd6237ac4cd8110d7ce9690b75ad54eaa6ed.

Evidence kind: held; polarity: not recorded; absent flag: 0; quoted-rule flag: 0 (1 = tagged; 0 = not tagged)

Midwest Grinding Co. v. Spitz — 976 F.2d 1016 (1992) · United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1992 — satisfied · conceded (18usc1962: author: Fable · QA: PASS (QA1, neov2/qa/cases-v1-QA1.md))Relatedness of predicate acts (horizontal and vertical relatedness)satisfied
Counted merits instance
applied / merits

basis: conceded; claim: (c),(d)

relatedness/single-scheme-against-one-victim
We limit our discussion to the continuity prong of this test because all parties agree that the relationship prong is satisfied here.
Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f2d_976.jsonl#/f2d/976/1016-01; Unicode character offsets [19389:19522] (end exclusive); SHA-256 ebc98ea70879c4cb40e7f64b87cbfd47e72732fe1a73dbca8733e49576748b79.

Evidence kind: held; polarity: not recorded; absent flag: 0; quoted-rule flag: 0 (1 = tagged; 0 = not tagged)

United States v. Mathis — 932 F.3d 242 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2019 — satisfied · proved (18usc1962: author: Flash1 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md))Relatedness of predicate acts (horizontal and vertical relatedness)satisfied
Counted merits instance
applied / merits

basis: proved; claim: (d); party: the six defendants (Halisi, Stokes, Kweli, Mersadies, Shantai, Mathis), members of the Double Nine Goon Syndikate (DNGS) set of the Bloods; count: Count 1 RICO conspiracy, § 1962(d); theory: sufficiency of the evidence; subject: party=the six defendants (Halisi, Stokes, Kweli, Mersadies, Shantai, Mathis), members of the Double Nine Goon Syndikate (DNGS) set of the Bloods; count=Count 1 RICO conspiracy, § 1962(d); theory=sufficiency of the evidence

Defendants argued their crimes were unplanned and spontaneous; the court treated only the relatedness prong as in issue and found it met.
twelve gang crimes by shifting combinations of members sharing purposes and violent methods
The government introduced evidence of twelve racketeering acts leading up to Quick's kidnapping and murder.
Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_932.jsonl#/f3d/932/0242-01; Unicode character offsets [32422:32529] (end exclusive); SHA-256 57793dd1aba827b59bff9ad538c0e503981d9c40eec6cbde662c786050cc5ea5.

Evidence kind: fact; polarity: supports; absent flag: 0; quoted-rule flag: 0 (1 = tagged; 0 = not tagged)

Those crimes shared the common purpose of enriching DNGS members, bolstering the gang's reputation for violence, or evading law enforcement authorities.
Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_932.jsonl#/f3d/932/0242-01; Unicode character offsets [32600:32752] (end exclusive); SHA-256 57793dd1aba827b59bff9ad538c0e503981d9c40eec6cbde662c786050cc5ea5.

Evidence kind: fact; polarity: supports; absent flag: 0; quoted-rule flag: 0 (1 = tagged; 0 = not tagged)

In committing these crimes, the defendants employed firearms, threats of physical force, and actual physical force.
Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_932.jsonl#/f3d/932/0242-01; Unicode character offsets [32753:32868] (end exclusive); SHA-256 57793dd1aba827b59bff9ad538c0e503981d9c40eec6cbde662c786050cc5ea5.

Evidence kind: fact; polarity: supports; absent flag: 0; quoted-rule flag: 0 (1 = tagged; 0 = not tagged)

Racketeering acts are related if they "have the same or similar purposes, results, participants, victims, or methods of commission, or otherwise are interrelated by distinguishing characteristics and are not isolated events."
Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_932.jsonl#/f3d/932/0242-01; Unicode character offsets [31917:32142] (end exclusive); SHA-256 57793dd1aba827b59bff9ad538c0e503981d9c40eec6cbde662c786050cc5ea5.

Evidence kind: rule; polarity: not recorded; absent flag: 0; quoted-rule flag: 1 (1 = tagged; 0 = not tagged)

We conclude that the government sufficiently established a "pattern of racketeering activity."
Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_932.jsonl#/f3d/932/0242-01; Unicode character offsets [32327:32421] (end exclusive); SHA-256 57793dd1aba827b59bff9ad538c0e503981d9c40eec6cbde662c786050cc5ea5.

Evidence kind: held; polarity: not recorded; absent flag: 0; quoted-rule flag: 0 (1 = tagged; 0 = not tagged)

Court interpretations

interpretation

the statutory language does not expressly require that the predicate acts of racketeering be specifically “related” to each other and we find no affirmative evidence in the legislative history from which we should infer such a requirement

United States v. Weisman — 624 F.2d 1118 (1980) · United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1980 (18usc1962: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA2, neov2/qa/cases-QA2.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed)

the statutory language does not expressly require that the predicate acts of racketeering be specifically “related” to each other and we find no affirmative evidence in the legislative history from which we should infer such a requirement
Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f2d_624.jsonl#/f2d/624/1118-01; Unicode character offsets [9856:10094] (end exclusive); SHA-256 9f02652be952ebf06fe5bc7850efdd6237ac4cd8110d7ce9690b75ad54eaa6ed.

Under H.J. Inc., predicate acts are related if they have the same or similar purposes, results, participants, victims, or methods of commission, or are interrelated by distinguishing characteristics and are not isolated events; in criminal enterprise cases (Weisman), vertical relatedness to the enterprise's affairs also links disparate predicates.

interpretation

Thus, the enterprise itself supplies a significant unifying link between the various predicate acts specified in section 1961(1) that may constitute a “pattern of racketeering activity.”

United States v. Weisman — 624 F.2d 1118 (1980) · United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1980 (18usc1962: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA2, neov2/qa/cases-QA2.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed)

Thus, the enterprise itself supplies a significant unifying link between the various predicate acts specified in section 1961(1) that may constitute a “pattern of racketeering activity.”
Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f2d_624.jsonl#/f2d/624/1118-01; Unicode character offsets [10752:10938] (end exclusive); SHA-256 9f02652be952ebf06fe5bc7850efdd6237ac4cd8110d7ce9690b75ad54eaa6ed.

Under H.J. Inc., predicate acts are related if they have the same or similar purposes, results, participants, victims, or methods of commission, or are interrelated by distinguishing characteristics and are not isolated events; in criminal enterprise cases (Weisman), vertical relatedness to the enterprise's affairs also links disparate predicates.