Richardson v. United States
526 U.S. 813 (1999)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
To convict a defendant under the Continuing Criminal Enterprise (CCE) statute, a federal jury must unanimously agree on which specific, individual violations constitute the 'continuing series of violations' element of the crime.
Facts:
- In 1970, Eddie Richardson organized a Chicago street gang known as the Undertaker Vice Lords.
- Richardson, known as the 'King of all the Undertakers,' ran the gang's operations.
- From 1984 to 1991, the gang engaged in the large-scale distribution of heroin, crack cocaine, and powder cocaine.
- Richardson managed the gang's drug sales and obtained substantial income from these unlawful activities.
- The government's case was built on evidence that Richardson's enterprise had committed numerous underlying drug violations over this multi-year period.
Procedural Posture:
- The Federal Government charged Eddie Richardson in U.S. District Court (trial court) with violating the Continuing Criminal Enterprise (CCE) statute.
- At trial, Richardson's counsel requested a jury instruction that would require the jury to unanimously agree on the specific acts constituting the 'series of violations.'
- The trial judge rejected Richardson's proposed instruction, instead telling the jurors they did not have to agree on the particular narcotics offenses the defendant committed.
- The jury returned a guilty verdict, and Richardson was convicted.
- Richardson appealed his conviction to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, which affirmed the trial court's decision and upheld the conviction.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve a split among the Circuit Courts on the issue of jury unanimity for CCE predicate offenses.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the 'continuing series of violations' element of the Continuing Criminal Enterprise (CCE) statute, 21 U.S.C. § 848, require a jury to unanimously agree on the specific violations that make up the series?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Breyer
Yes. To secure a conviction under the Continuing Criminal Enterprise (CCE) statute, the jury must unanimously agree on which specific criminal acts constitute the 'continuing series of violations.' The term 'violation' has a distinct legal meaning that implies specific conduct contrary to law, and criminal law tradition requires juries to unanimously determine whether a defendant has engaged in such conduct. Treating individual violations as mere 'means' to satisfy a single 'series' element would risk serious unfairness by allowing a conviction where jurors disagree on what the defendant actually did. Furthermore, interpreting the statute to require unanimity on each predicate offense avoids potential constitutional due process issues that would arise if a conviction could be based on a non-unanimous finding of the essential criminal acts.
Dissenting - Justice Kennedy
No. The Continuing Criminal Enterprise (CCE) statute was designed to target the ongoing criminal organization itself, not to punish discrete predicate offenses. The 'continuing series of violations' should be treated as a single element of the crime, just like the requirement that the defendant supervised 'five or more other persons,' where unanimity on the specific identities is not required. The majority's holding misinterprets congressional intent and imposes a significant new burden on prosecutors, making it much harder to convict the high-level 'drug kingpins' the statute was designed to reach, especially when their operations involve thousands of transactions over many years. This decision effectively rewards kingpins whose operations are so vast and complex that proving specific individual transactions with unanimity becomes impractical.
Analysis:
This decision significantly increases the government's burden of proof in CCE prosecutions by defining each predicate offense as a separate element requiring jury unanimity. Previously, prosecutors could present evidence of a vast criminal operation and argue that the defendant committed at least three violations from that larger pool. Now, the government must specifically allege and prove, to the satisfaction of a unanimous jury, a set number of individual violations, which may be difficult in complex cases spanning many years. This holding reinforces the principle of jury unanimity as a fundamental protection against convictions based on a composite of different jurors' beliefs about different criminal acts, thereby clarifying the distinction between the 'elements' of an offense and the 'means' by which an element is committed.
Unlock the full brief for Richardson v. United States