Pryba Et Al. v. United States

Background

Four defendants — Dennis and Barbara Pryba, a small company, and Jennifer Williams — were convicted under RICO for a conspiracy involving the use or investment of money derived from repeated criminal activity. The trial court told jurors they could be convicted if each defendant either agreed to personally commit two or more racketeering acts or agreed that another co‑worker would commit those acts. The Fourth Circuit sided with most appeals courts and affirmed the convictions, holding that a defendant need not personally agree to commit two predicate crimes so long as they agreed the acts would be done by a coconspirator.

Reasoning

The central practical question is whether a RICO conspiracy conviction requires each defendant to promise to commit two criminal acts themselves, or whether it is enough to agree that others will do those acts. The Supreme Court declined to hear the case, so it did not resolve that question nationally. Justice White dissented from the denial and said he would have granted review to settle the conflict among the appeals courts, warning that different circuits reach different results about what conduct §1962(d) reaches.

Real world impact

Because the Court refused to review the case, the Fourth Circuit ruling stands and the split among federal appeals courts remains. That means similar defendants may face different outcomes depending on which appeals court hears their case. The denial is not a final ruling on the legal question and future appeals could still bring the issue back to the Court.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice White’s dissent explains he would have granted limited review to resolve the circuit split and emphasized that the disagreement affects how broadly prosecutors can pursue RICO conspiracy charges.