United States v. Starrett
55 F.3d 1525 (1995)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
To be liable for a substantive RICO violation under 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c), a defendant must have participated in the operation or management of the enterprise, which includes lower-rung participants knowingly implementing decisions. To establish the affirmative defense of withdrawal from a RICO conspiracy, a defendant must prove they took affirmative steps to defeat the conspiracy's objectives and communicated those acts to co-conspirators or law enforcement.
Facts:
- The Outlaw Motorcycle Club is a national 'one-percenter' motorcycle gang with a hierarchical structure, local chapters, and rules governing members.
- James Thomas Nolan founded the South Florida chapter, which treated women ('old ladies') as property, forcing them into prostitution and nude dancing to earn money for the club's members.
- Women who disobeyed rules or attempted to leave were subjected to brutal punishment, including beatings, gang rape, and torture.
- In 1974, Nolan ordered other members to murder three members of the rival Hell's Angels motorcycle club by luring them to the Outlaws' clubhouse and executing them.
- After Joyce Karleen was kidnapped, raped, and tortured at the clubhouse, Nolan ordered Donald Joe Sears to murder Naomi Sinoqub, a witness to the torture. Sears carried out the murder.
- In 1980, Timothy Kevin Duke murdered Mary Lou Rodriguez by strangling her and shooting her with a spear gun because he feared she would inform the police about his activities.
- Frederick Joseph Hegney, along with another Outlaw, murdered three people in 1983 as revenge for an offense committed against the other Outlaw's 'old lady'.
- Other members, including Michael Lee Cave and James Walter Starrett, engaged in numerous predicate acts including extortion, assault, murder, and narcotics trafficking to further the enterprise's goals and maintain its intimidating reputation.
Procedural Posture:
- A federal grand jury in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida returned a superseding indictment charging James Thomas Nolan, James Walter Starrett, Donald Joe Sears, Frederick Joseph Hegney, Michael Lee Cave, and Timothy Kevin Duke with substantive and conspiracy RICO violations.
- The district court denied pre-trial motions for severance filed by Hegney, Sears, and Cave.
- After a trial lasting over a year, a jury found Nolan, Hegney, Sears, and Cave guilty on both substantive RICO and RICO conspiracy counts.
- The jury found Starrett and Duke guilty only of the RICO conspiracy count.
- The district court entered judgments of conviction and sentenced all six defendants to terms of imprisonment.
- All six convicted defendants (appellants) appealed their convictions to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is there sufficient evidence to convict members of a motorcycle club of substantive and conspiracy RICO violations where their predicate acts, including murder, extortion, and narcotics trafficking, demonstrate participation in the 'operation or management' of the enterprise?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
Yes, there is sufficient evidence to support the RICO convictions. To be liable for a substantive RICO violation, a defendant must participate in the operation or management of the enterprise, but this liability is not limited to upper management. The court adopted the 'operation or management' test from the civil RICO case Reves v. Ernst & Young for criminal prosecutions, holding that the test is satisfied by 'lower-rung participants in the enterprise who are under the direction of upper management' or those who 'knowingly implement decisions.' The appellants' actions, such as committing murders to silence witnesses (Hegney and Sears) or setting up drug labs to pay off club debts (Cave), constituted participation in directing the enterprise's affairs. The court also rejected Duke's defense of withdrawal from the conspiracy, holding that a 'mere cessation of activity' is insufficient. A defendant must prove they took affirmative steps to disavow or defeat the conspiracy's objectives and communicated those actions to co-conspirators or law enforcement, which Duke failed to do.
Analysis:
This decision is significant for formally extending the Supreme Court's 'operation or management' test from Reves v. Ernst & Young, a civil case, to criminal RICO prosecutions in the Eleventh Circuit. By clarifying that liability is not limited to high-level leaders, the ruling broadens the scope of RICO's reach to include lower-level members who knowingly carry out the criminal objectives of an enterprise. This interpretation makes it easier for prosecutors to dismantle entire criminal organizations by targeting members at all levels. The case also reinforces the high legal standard for the withdrawal defense in conspiracy cases, making it difficult for defendants to escape liability by simply ceasing their involvement without an affirmative act of repudiation.
