## Facts

- The United States charged thirty-eight defendants, most alleged to be members or associates of the El Rukn street gang, in a 175-count indictment alleging over 250 criminal acts occurring from 1966 to 1989.
- The government alleged the defendants’ acts were unified by their purpose of advancing the power, control, and wealth of a single racketeering enterprise.
- Count I alleged a RICO conspiracy to conduct the enterprise’s affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity, including numerous murders, attempted murders, conspiracies to murder, kidnapping, witness intimidation, and narcotics trafficking.
- Count II alleged substantive RICO violations against many defendants for participating in enterprise-related racketeering acts.
- Count III alleged a long-running conspiracy to distribute controlled substances across multiple locations.
- Before trial, multiple defendants moved to dismiss or sever for misjoinder under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 8(b), or alternatively sought severance under Rule 14 based on prejudice from a joint trial.

## Issues

1. Whether the defendants and counts were properly joined under Rule 8(b) as arising from the same “series of acts or transactions,” given the indictment’s scope, time span, and variety of alleged crimes.
2. Whether, even if joinder was proper, Rule 14 required severance because a joint trial would cause substantial prejudice through jury confusion and evidentiary spillover.

## Decision

- The court held that joinder was generally proper under Rule 8(b) because the indictment alleged a single RICO enterprise and overarching RICO conspiracy linking the charged conduct.
- The court rejected the argument that the indictment’s size and diversity alone established misjoinder, but examined whether specific counts and defendants were sufficiently connected to the enterprise-based scheme.
- The court denied requests for wholesale severance and declined to dismantle the case into multiple separate trials.
- The court granted limited severance and tailored relief to manage complexity and reduce particularized prejudice, relying on trial-structure tools and limiting instructions.

## Legal Principles

- Rule 8(b) permits joinder when defendants allegedly participated in the same series of acts or transactions; an alleged single RICO enterprise and enterprise-wide conspiracy can supply the required transactional relationship among otherwise diverse predicate acts.
- Enterprise-based joinder is not automatic; courts must assess whether particular counts and defendants are genuinely connected to the charged enterprise and its alleged pattern of racketeering activity.
- Rule 14 severance requires a showing of substantial prejudice—such as impairment of a specific trial right or an inability of the jury to make a reliable, individualized determination—not merely that a separate trial might be more favorable.
- In complex multi-defendant RICO prosecutions, courts may mitigate prejudice through careful trial management (including structuring proof and issuing limiting instructions) and narrowly targeted severances rather than broad fragmentation.

## Conclusion

The court treated the alleged RICO enterprise and conspiracy as a sufficient nexus for broad joinder under Rule 8(b), denied requests to sever the case wholesale, and instead ordered limited severance and management measures under Rule 14 to protect individualized fairness in an exceptionally large multi-defendant prosecution.


United States v. Andrews, 754 F. Supp. 1161 (N.D. Ill. 1990)