Adams v. United States

Background

A man convicted for his role in a large narcotics distribution scheme was found guilty both under the main RICO crime in 18 U.S.C. §1962(c) and of conspiring to commit that offense. He asked the trial judge to tell the jury that they could only convict him of conspiracy if the evidence showed he personally agreed to commit two racketeering acts. The judge refused that instruction, and the Third Circuit affirmed the conviction, holding a defendant need only agree that two predicate acts be committed, not that he personally commit them.

Reasoning

The core question is whether a RICO conspiracy conviction requires a defendant’s personal agreement to commit two racketeering acts, or whether agreeing that others will commit those acts is enough. The opinion explains that federal appeals courts are split: some require a promise to personally commit the acts, while others follow the Third Circuit’s broader rule. The Government itself has argued both positions in different cases. The Supreme Court denied review, so it did not resolve the disagreement among the appeals courts.

Real world impact

Because the Court refused to take the case, the Third Circuit’s ruling remains in place for this defendant and the split among federal appeals courts persists. That means similar defendants may face different legal tests depending on which appeals circuit handles their case. The denial is not a final ruling on the legal question and leaves open the possibility that the Court could decide the issue in a later case.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice White, joined by the Chief Justice, dissented from the denial and argued the high court should have granted review to resolve the circuit conflict.