## Facts

- James Licavoli led a Cleveland organized-crime group; Anthony Liberatore, John Calandra, Ronald Carabbia, Pasquale Cisternino, and Kenneth Ciarcia were members.
- In 1976, Danny Greene was killed by a car bomb, and all six were prosecuted in Ohio state court for the killing.
- In the state case, Cisternino, Carabbia, and Ciarcia were convicted, while Licavoli and Calandra were acquitted.
- Separately, Ciarcia arranged to pay a federal employee to obtain information about federal investigations involving Ciarcia, Liberatore, and Licavoli; federal charges for bribery and conspiracy to bribe followed.
- In that federal bribery matter, Ciarcia pleaded guilty and Liberatore was convicted.
- The United States then brought a federal RICO prosecution against the defendants, charging that they conspired to participate in the affairs of an enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity under 18 U.S.C. § 1962.
- The alleged racketeering acts included, among other conduct, the Greene murder and related murder-conspiracy conduct (state-law predicates) and the bribery scheme (a federal predicate).
- After a jury trial, all defendants were found guilty of the RICO offense(s) and appealed, challenging the use of murder and murder conspiracy as predicate acts and raising related statutory and constitutional objections, including objections tied to earlier acquittals and convictions.

## Issues

1. Whether murder and conspiracy to commit murder could both qualify as “racketeering activity” predicate acts under RICO.
2. Whether state-law predicates are “chargeable under state law” for RICO purposes when state procedural bars (including statutes of limitations) might prevent a current state prosecution.
3. Whether Licavoli’s and Calandra’s prior state-court acquittals prevented the federal government from relying on the Greene murder and/or a murder conspiracy as RICO predicate acts.
4. Whether using bribery-related conduct as a RICO predicate was improper because of earlier federal bribery convictions or guilty pleas involving the same conduct.
5. Whether admitting testimony from prior state proceedings in the federal RICO trial was permissible under the Federal Rules of Evidence (including the former-testimony exception).

## Decision

- The Sixth Circuit affirmed the judgments of conviction.
- The court held that both conspiracy to murder and murder may be treated as separate predicate acts for RICO purposes when each qualifies under the statute’s definition of “racketeering activity.”
- The court rejected the argument that a state statute of limitations (or similar state procedural restrictions) prevents an otherwise qualifying state offense from being “chargeable under state law” within 18 U.S.C. § 1961(1)(A); the state-law reference serves to identify the type of conduct.
- The court held that prior state-court acquittals did not bar the federal prosecution from alleging and proving the same conduct as predicate acts in a RICO case.
- The court rejected objections to the use of bribery-related conduct as a predicate on the ground that some defendants had already been convicted (or pleaded guilty) in earlier federal bribery proceedings.
- The court upheld the challenged evidentiary rulings, including admission of certain prior testimony from earlier proceedings under the applicable hearsay exception requirements.

## Legal Principles

- RICO permits proof of a “pattern of racketeering activity” by establishing at least two qualifying predicate acts; separate crimes arising from related events may each count if they independently fit the statutory definition.
- Conspiracy offenses can qualify as RICO predicate acts when the conspiracy is itself an offense listed (or incorporated by reference) within 18 U.S.C. § 1961(1); a conspiracy and the completed substantive offense may be counted separately.
- The phrase “chargeable under State law” in 18 U.S.C. § 1961(1)(A) refers to the kind of conduct made criminal by state law and does not incorporate state procedural limitations (such as the running of a state limitations period) to disqualify the conduct as a RICO predicate.
- A prior state-court acquittal does not, by itself, prevent the federal government from relying on the same conduct as a predicate act element in a federal RICO prosecution.
- Prior testimony may be admitted under Fed. R. Evid. 804(b)(1) when the declarant is unavailable and the opposing party had an adequate prior opportunity and a similar motive to develop the testimony in the earlier proceeding.

## Conclusion

United States v. Licavoli affirmed RICO convictions arising from a Cleveland organized-crime enterprise, holding that murder and murder conspiracy could both serve as predicate acts, that state-law predicates remain “chargeable under state law” even if state procedural defenses would block a current state prosecution, and that neither earlier state acquittals nor earlier federal bribery outcomes barred the government from relying on the same conduct as RICO predicates; the court also upheld the key evidentiary rulings used to prove the charged pattern and enterprise.


United States v. Licavoli, 725 F.2d 1040 (1984)