## Facts

- A New York kidnapping ring targeted successful narcotics dealers believed to have cash and to be unlikely to contact police.
- The operation functioned through two groups: one identified targets and another, led by Louis Ruggiero, Jr. and David Cleary, posed as law enforcement, “arrested” victims, abducted them, and demanded ransom.
- The ring compiled a list of ten targets and, over about three and one-half months, attempted seven kidnappings.
- Evidence included testimony from more than forty witnesses, physical items (including fake badges, firearms, and handcuffs), recordings of conspirator conversations, and ransom calls.
- In key incidents, one victim escaped yet was still pressured for money; ransom proceeds from one kidnapping were used to buy vehicles for future kidnappings; one victim was tortured and shot; and another was killed after ransom was not paid.
- After the target-identification leader died, the kidnapping activity stopped; law enforcement later arrested participants.
- Cleary and Ruggiero were convicted of substantive and conspiracy RICO offenses and numerous related violent-crime and firearms counts; Aulicino was convicted of conspiracy to kidnap.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence established a RICO “pattern of racketeering activity,” including relatedness and continuity, where the predicate crimes occurred over roughly three and one-half months and later ceased.
2. Whether statements admitted as coconspirator statements under Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)(E) were improperly received.
3. Whether the district court abused its discretion or violated fair-trial rights by using an anonymous jury.
4. Whether the evidence was sufficient to support Aulicino’s conviction for conspiracy to kidnap and whether challenged sentencing rulings were erroneous.

## Decision

- The Second Circuit affirmed the convictions and sentences of all defendants.
- It held the evidence sufficient to prove a RICO pattern, including continuity, despite the scheme’s short duration.
- It upheld admission of coconspirator statements, finding an adequate showing that a conspiracy existed, defendants participated, and the statements were made during and in furtherance of the conspiracy.
- It upheld the use of an anonymous jury based on the enterprise’s violent conduct and risk of intimidation, coupled with steps to reduce prejudice.
- It held the evidence sufficient for Aulicino’s kidnapping-conspiracy conviction and rejected sentencing challenges.

## Legal Principles

- A RICO pattern requires related predicate acts that amount to, or threaten, continued racketeering activity; continuity may be shown by the nature of the scheme and the threat of ongoing criminal conduct, not solely by elapsed time.
- A short period of racketeering activity can satisfy continuity where the enterprise is structured to commit repeated similar crimes and appears likely to continue absent interruption.
- Coconspirator statements are admissible under Rule 801(d)(2)(E) when the court finds, based on independent evidence, that a conspiracy existed, the defendant joined it, and the statements were made during and in furtherance of it.
- An anonymous jury may be used when the record supports juror-safety or intimidation concerns and the court takes measures to limit unfair prejudice.
- Sufficiency review asks whether, viewing the evidence in the government’s favor, a rational juror could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; sentencing fact findings are reviewed for clear error.

## Conclusion

The court held that a violent kidnapping enterprise aimed at repeated abductions from a prepared target list presented a sufficient threat of ongoing criminal activity to satisfy RICO continuity, and it affirmed the district court’s evidentiary rulings, decision to empanel an anonymous jury, and the defendants’ convictions and sentences.


United States v. Aulicino, 44 F.3d 1102 (2d Cir. 1995)