Here's a pdf of the Pellicano trial memo - Luke Ford

Case 2:05-cr-01046-DSF Document 1215 Filed 02/28/2008 Page 36 of 129
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
conviction of a sheriff’s deputy who facilitated scheme whereby
his boss received multiple kickbacks from a prisoner in exchange
for permitting unauthorized conjugal visits). Instead, the
government must only prove that the particular defendant agreed
that, at some point during the life of the conspiracy, a member
of the conspiracy would commit, on behalf of the conspiracy, at
least two related acts of racketeering, with the jury being
unanimous as to which type or types of predicate racketeering
activity the defendant agreed would be committed. Id. at 65. As
the Salinas Court stated:
A conspirator must intend to further an endeavor
which, if completed, would satisfy all the elements of
a substantive criminal offense, but it suffices that he
adopt the goal of furthering or facilitating the
criminal endeavor. He may do so in any number of ways
short of agreeing to undertake all of the acts
necessary for the crimes completion . . .
A (RICO or other federal) conspiracy may exist
even if a conspirator does not agree to commit or
facilitate each and every part of the substantive
offense. The partners in the criminal plan must agree
to pursue the same criminal objective (here the
operation of the RICO enterprise) and may divide up the
work, yet each is responsible for the acts of each
other. See Pinkerton v. United States, 328 U.S. 640
(1946). If conspirators have a plan which calls for
some conspirators to perpetrate the crime and others to
provide support, the supporters are as guilty as the
perpetrators.
Salinas, 522 U.S. at 62-65.
Third, to convict a defendant of a substantive RICO offense,
the government must prove that the defendant personally
participated in the operation or management of the enterprise.
However, such proof is not required to convict a defendant of a
27
28 -9-