11th Cir. Pattern Jury Instr. (Criminal) O75.1

18 U.S.C. § 1962(c)

It’s a Federal crime to knowingly participate in conducting the activities of an

enterprise whose activities involve or affect interstate commerce through a pattern of

racketeering activity.

An “enterprise” includes legal entities such as any partnership, corporation, or

association. It also includes a nonlegal entity that is a group of people associated for a

common purpose of engaging in a course of conduct.

“Racketeering activity” includes any acts that violate [cite relevant statute(s), e.g.,

Title 18 of the United States Code relating to mail fraud (section 1341) and wire fraud

(Section 1343)].

A “pattern of racketeering activity” means that at least two acts of racketeering

activity were committed within ten years. At least one of the acts must have occurred after

October 15, 1970.

Count of the indictment charges that beginning on or about

and continuing through [date indictment was filed], the named Defendants participated in

conducting the activities of an enterprise, whose activities use or affect interstate

commerce, “through a pattern of racketeering activity.”

To establish that a Defendant named in count committed the crime charged

in that count, five specific facts must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt:

(1) the Defendant was associated with an enterprise;

(2) the Defendant knowingly committed, or aided and abetted in

committing, at least two acts of racketeering activity;

(3) the two acts of racketeering activity were connected by a

common scheme, plan, or motive constituting a pattern of

criminal activity, and not just a series of separate, isolated, or

disconnected acts;

(4) by committing the two or more connected acts, the Defendant

participated in conducting the enterprise's affairs; and

(5) the enterprise engaged in, or the activities of the enterprise

affected, interstate commerce.

For the first specific fact, you must find that the Defendant was associated with the

enterprise. “Associated” means having an awareness of something’s general existence. So

the Government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the Defendant was aware of

the general existence of the enterprise described in the indictment.

For the second specific fact, the Government must prove beyond a reasonable

doubt that the Defendant knowingly committed, or aided and abetted in committing, at

least two acts of racketeering activity specifically described in the indictment [under the

headings “Racketeering Act One” and “Racketeering Act Two.”] [in Counts through

.]

But if you find that the Defendant was involved in at least two acts of

racketeering activity, you must all agree on exactly which two acts of racketeering

activity the Defendant committed or aided and abetted in committing. It isn’t enough

for you to agree that the Defendant committed two acts if you can’t agree on the same

two acts.

For the fourth specific fact, “participating in conduct” means having some inside

role in managing or operating the enterprise at some level. It doesn’t matter whether

the Defendant had primary responsibility for anything or a managerial position. But

“participating in conduct” doesn’t include being an outsider and helping out in some

way.

So the Government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the Defendant

had some inside role in managing or operating the enterprise, and that the Defendant

was not an outsider helping the enterprise.

For the fifth specific fact, “interstate commerce” means business, trade, or

movement between one state and another. The Government must prove beyond a

reasonable doubt that the enterprise engaged in, or the activities of the enterprise

affected, interstate commerce by [describe interstate commerce activity from

indictment; e.g. using interstate communications facilities by making long-distance

phone calls; by traveling from one state to another; by sending funds by mail or wire

from one state to another]. If you find that these transactions or events occurred,

and that they occurred or were done in the course of or as a direct result of conducting

the enterprise’s affairs, then the required involvement in or effect on interstate

commerce is established, but if you don’t so find, then the required effect on interstate

commerce is not established.