DEFENSE · 18usc1962:x-double-jeopardy
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.
Exact element source
to conspire to violate any of the provisions of subsection (a), (b), or (c) of this sectionSource:
docroot/ir/usc/title18.jsonl#title18_sec1962; Unicode character offsets [1936:2027] (end exclusive); SHA-256 6caae47f43b5ab0899b660616e298363bd36f9f540d915c2be11eb7126f5e27d.All variants
| Variant | Description | Merits instance blocks | Distinct cases | Example cases (up to 3 per group) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| successive-rico-conspiracy/different-enterprise-parent-organization-vs-subunit | 0 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 1 | 0 | No counted merits examples Excluded context examples: /f3d/490/0575-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2007 — applied/procedural |
How courts decided this element
| Case | Element | Holding and scope | Variant | Exact source quotations |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| /f3d/490/0575-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2007 | 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. |
Court interpretations
interpretation
These would be different conspiracies and hence different crimes even if the acts constituting the pattern of racketeering activity overlapped.
/f3d/490/0575-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2007
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.”
/f3d/490/0575-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2007
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.