United States v. Justin Rone, United States of America v. Roy Dupont Little

On July 26, 1977, the Grand Jury returned a six-count indictment charging appellants Rone and Little with:

COUNT I: Conspiracy to violate the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations statute (RICO) ( 18 U.S.C. § 1962 (d)).

COUNT II: A substantive RICO offense, including as the acts of racketeering three murders and two extortions (the same ex-tortions alleged in Counts III and IV ( 18 U.S.C. § 1962 (c)).

COUNT III: The extortion of Donald Brennan ( 18 U.S.C. § 894 ).

COUNT IV: The extortion of Kenneth Brader ( 18 U.S.C. § 894 ).

Rone alone was named in the last two counts of the indictment.

COUNT V: Possession of an unregistered firearm ( 18 U.S.C. § 5861 (d)).

COUNT VI: Possession of a firearm which was not identified by a serial number (the same sawed-off shotgun involved in Count V) ( 18 U.S.C. § 5861 (i)).

Following an eleven-day trial before Judge Takasugi, the jury returned its verdict, finding each defendant guilty of all charges against him. In addition, a special verdict form was returned as to Count II of the indictment, finding that the defendants has committed all three murders and the two extortions. The district court sentenced the defendants to the…

(dissenting):

I respectfully dissent from that portion of the majority opinion which upholds appellants’ convictions under the Anti-Racketeering Statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1961 et seq. (1970) (hereinafter cited RICO).

As reprehensible as one should consider appellants’ criminal activities to have been, I simply cannot conclude from my reading of the statute and its relevant legislative history that Congress intended RICO’s broad proscriptions to encompass such an illicit association as the association of Rone and Little in this case. Such a conclusion, I realize, aligns me in opposition not only to my Brothers’ interpretation of the term “enterprise,” but also to the reported views of three other Courts of Appeals. 1 Nevertheless, I am constrained to side with Judge Van Graafeiland who, dissenting in United States v. Altese, 542 F.2d 104, 107-111 (2d Cir. 1976), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 1039 , 97 S.Ct. 736 , 50 L.Ed.2d 750 (1977), wrote:

Id. at 107-108. I fully subscribe to Judge Van Graafeiland’s logical and perceptive analysis. See also United States v. Moeller, 402 F.Supp. 49, 58-59 (D.Conn.1975) (persons associated for illicit purpose of arson not a RICO “enterprise”).

As to…

598 F.2d 564 UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Justin RONE, Defendant-Appellant. UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Roy Dupont LITTLE, Defendant-Appellant. Nos. 77-3964, 77-3695. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. June 13, 1979. 1 Terry Amdur, Pasadena, Joe Reichman, Los Angeles, Cal., for defendant-appellant. 2 Ronald W. Rose, Asst. U. S. Atty., Los Angeles, Cal., for plaintiff-appellee. 3 Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California. 4 Before ELY and WALLACE, Circuit Judges, and FOLEY, * District Judge. ROGER D. FOLEY, District Judge: 5 On July 26, 1977, the Grand Jury returned a six-count indictment charging appellants Rone and Little with: 6 COUNT I: Conspiracy to violate the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations statute (RICO) ( 18 U.S.C. § 1962 (d)). 7 COUNT II: A substantive RICO offense, including as the acts of racketeering three murders and two extortions (the same extortions alleged in Counts III and IV ( 18 U.S.C. § 1962 (c)). 8 COUNT III: The extortion of Donald Brennan ( 18 U.S.C. § 894 ). 9 COUNT IV: The extortion of Kenneth Brader ( 18 U.S.C. § 894 ). 10…