Frega

United States v. Frega

Bad Law
179 F.3d 793·99 Daily Journal DAR 5643·1999 WL 366572·1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 11774·99 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 4392
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJune 8, 1999Nos. 97-50100, 97-50111, 97-50113 and 97-50171California15,375 words

Opinion

Concurrence in Part

Rymer, J.

concurring in part and dissenting in part:

Because the district judge correctly instructed on RICO conspiracy, but the majority holds otherwise, I dissent from Part VII. This requires me to consider other RICO challenges that the majority avoids, but which the district court also properly resolved. Finally, since the facts matter and must be viewed in light of the guilty verdict, I set them out in full. They provide context for the entire case as well as for the RICO conspiracy.

*813 I

Patrick Frega was a high-profile, San Diego plaintiffs lawyer who initiated a scheme to bribe former California Superi- or Court Judges Michael Greer, James Malkus, and Dennis Adams. From 1984 until 1991, Frega and co-conspirator Jim Williams disbursed over $100,000 in payments and benefits to the judges in exchange for unfair advantage in Frega’s cases. The three judges worked together to divert Frega’s cases or settlement proceedings to the judge’s calendar of Frega’s choice.

The conspiracy began with the close friendship that developed between Frega and Greer in the early 1980’s. The pair met and dined frequently with one another, and their conversation often focused on Frega’s high-stakes…

Lead Opinion

Sections I, VI and VII were authored by Judge REINHARDT; sections II, III, IV, V and VIII by Judge RYMER; Partial Concurrence and Partial Dissent by Judge RYMER.

Attorney Patrick Frega and former California Superior Court judges James Mal-leus and Dennis Adams appeal their convictions following a jury trial for conspiring to conduct the affairs of the San Diego Superior Court through a pattern of racketeering activity in violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C. § 1962 (d), and for mail fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341 and 1346. Frega also appeals his conviction for conducting the affairs of the Superior Court through a pattern of racketeering activity in violation of RICO, 18 U.S.C. § 1962 (c). The government cross-appeals the sentences imposed. We affirm the mail fraud convictions as to all three defendants as well as Frega’s substantive RICO conviction, reverse the RICO conspiracy convictions, and deny the cross-appeal. We remand for reconsideration of the defendants’ sentences in light of our decision.

I

This case involves allegations of numerous bribes paid by Patrick Frega, a San Diego attorney, to three then Superior…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.