## Facts

- John William Hammond operated an illegal sports bookmaking business in St. Paul, Minnesota, from about August 1983 to January 1984.
- Hammond used a compartmentalized telephone-based structure intended to reduce detection and records.
- James Rebeck received incoming calls from bettors, wrote down identifying information (often code names) on water-soluble rice paper, and relayed that information to others; he did not record the bets themselves.
- Steven Chiarella and William Klabunder used lists supplied by Hammond (code names and phone numbers) to call bettors back, take wagers, record them on rice paper, and destroy tallies after reporting the bets.
- Chiarella and Klabunder occasionally placed long-distance calls to take wagers.
- Sandra Crawford allowed Rebeck to use the telephone at her residence for bettor calls, knew the telephone was used for the gambling business, was paid for its use, supplied rice paper, and sometimes answered calls, recorded bettor information, and relayed it to the operation.
- A jury convicted Hammond of conducting an illegal gambling business involving five or more persons (18 U.S.C. § 1955) and four counts of aiding and abetting use of interstate facilities to transmit wagering information (18 U.S.C. §§ 1084, 2).

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence was sufficient to prove the § 1955 requirement that five or more persons “conducted” the illegal gambling business, including whether Crawford qualified as a person who “conducts” the business.
2. Whether the evidence was sufficient to convict Hammond of aiding and abetting violations of § 1084 where subordinates made the long-distance wagering calls and Hammond did not personally place them.

## Decision

- The Eighth Circuit affirmed all convictions.
- The court held the evidence permitted a rational jury to find Crawford’s compensated, knowing assistance and occasional message-taking qualified her as one who “conducts” the gambling business, satisfying the five-person requirement under § 1955.
- The court held the evidence permitted a rational jury to find Hammond aided and abetted the interstate transmission offenses because he organized and supervised an operation that used telephone communications, including interstate calls, to take wagers.

## Legal Principles

- Under 18 U.S.C. § 1955, “conducts” is construed broadly and includes persons who knowingly perform acts that are necessary to or contribute to the gambling operation; ownership, management, or indispensability is not required.
- Aiding and abetting liability under 18 U.S.C. § 2 requires proof the defendant associated with the venture, participated in it as something he sought to bring about, and acted to make it succeed.
- For 18 U.S.C. § 1084 offenses, personal use of interstate facilities is unnecessary if the defendant knowingly directs or supports a scheme in which such use occurs as part of the operation.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed Hammond’s convictions, holding that a compensated, knowing provider of operational support who occasionally relays betting communications may be counted toward § 1955’s five-person threshold, and that an organizer may be convicted for aiding and abetting § 1084 violations based on interstate calls placed by subordinates within the directed gambling enterprise.


United States v. Hammond, 821 F.2d 473 (8th Cir. 1987)