United States District Court, D. Connecticut
MEMORANDUM OF OPINION
MICHAEL P. SHEA, U.S.D.J.
This
opinion follows and explains my orders of June 10, 11, and 12
vacating the guilty pleas of the defendants in this case with
respect to the RICO conspiracy charge.
On
August 3, 2017, following an investigation into several
shootings in New Haven throughout 2016, a grand jury returned
a multi-count indictment charging six individuals with
various offenses, including a racketeering conspiracy;
violent crimes in aid of racketeering; offenses related to
possession, transfer, and use of firearms; and possession
with intent to distribute narcotics. (ECF No. 1.) In July and
September of 2018, the defendants, Milton Westley, Michael
Belle, Dejuan Ward, Sedale Pervis, Clifford Brodie, and
Michael Via, appeared before me and changed their pleas to
guilty to Count One of the Indictment, which charged them
with conspiracy to violate the Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 1962(d). On April 22, 2019, I reviewed the plea
agreements and transcripts of the change of plea hearings for
Mr. Westley, Mr. Belle, and Mr. Ward and preliminarily
concluded that these defendants had not admitted to conduct
at their change of plea hearings that amounted to a RICO
conspiracy. As a result, I ordered the parties to show cause
why their guilty pleas should not be vacated because there
was not a factual basis in the record at the time of the
hearings to support their pleas. (ECF No. 322.) The
Government responded on May 9, 2019 (ECF No. 325), but no
defendant filed a response. On June 10, 2019, I vacated the
pleas and noted that I would issue an opinion setting forth
my reasoning more fully. (ECF No. 335.) On June 11 and 12,
2019, I reviewed the transcripts and plea agreements for Mr.
Pervis, Mr. Brodie, and Mr. Via. I determined that the same
defects I had previously identified for Mr. Westley, Mr.
Belle, and Mr. Ward applied for these defendants as well. I
therefore vacated their pleas but provided them with seven
days to file an objection. I now set forth my reasoning for
doing so.
I.
Background
I
assume familiarity with the procedural history of the case
and set forth only the background information necessary to
explain my reasoning.
Trial
in this case was scheduled for October 17, 2018. In July and
September of 2018, all six defendants notified the Government
and the Court of their intention to plead guilty to Count One
of the Indictment charging them with conspiracy to violate
the substantive provisions of RICO.[1] The parties negotiated plea
agreements, and the Court scheduled change-of-plea hearings.
A. Plea
Agreements
The six
plea agreements each adhere to a similar structure. First,
the agreements summarize the essential elements of a RICO
conspiracy. They explain that, to be guilty of conspiracy to
engage in a pattern of racketeering activity in violation of
18 U.S.C. § 1962(d), the following essential elements of
the offense must be satisfied:
1. An enterprise, as described in the Indictment, existed on
or about the time alleged in the indictment;
2. The enterprise was engaged in, or its activities affected,
interstate or foreign commerce;
3. The defendant was employed by, or was associated with, the
enterprise;
4. The defendant knowingly agreed to conduct or participate,
directly or indirectly, in the conduct of the affairs of the
charged enterprise; and
5. The defendant knowingly agreed to participate in the
conduct of the affairs of the charged enterprise through a
pattern of racketeering activity, as described in the
Indictment; that is, through the commission of at least two
charged racketeering acts within ten years of each other, or
through causing or aiding and abetting the commission of two
such racketeering acts or ...