## Facts

- Federal prosecutors charged Noe Machado-Erazo and Jose Martinez-Amaya (with a third co-defendant tried jointly) with crimes tied to La Mara Salvatrucha Trece (MS-13), a structured gang operating in the D.C./Maryland area with leadership and coordination beyond individual local cliques.
- After a multi-week jury trial, the jury convicted both movants of (1) RICO conspiracy, (2) murder in aid of racketeering (VICAR murder), and (3) possessing a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence.
- The government’s proof described MS-13 as an enterprise organized through programs and local cliques, with practices such as meetings, dues, and coordinated criminal activity.
- The prosecution introduced evidence of racketeering activity used to prove the charged RICO conspiracy and evidence tying the defendants to the charged VICAR murder and related firearm use.
- After the verdict, defendants moved for judgments of acquittal (Rule 29) or, alternatively, new trials (Rule 33); Machado-Erazo also sought reconsideration of the denial of severance.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence was sufficient to permit a rational jury to find a single overarching RICO conspiracy (rather than multiple unrelated conspiracies) and to find each defendant guilty of RICO conspiracy.
2. Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the VICAR murder convictions, including the required purpose to maintain or increase position within the enterprise, and the related § 924(c) firearm convictions.
3. Whether venue in the District of Columbia was proper for the charged conspiracy and related offenses.
4. Whether joinder with a co-defendant and denial of severance caused unfair prejudice warranting a new trial or reconsideration of severance.

## Decision

- The court denied both defendants’ Rule 29 motions for judgment of acquittal.
- The court denied both defendants’ Rule 33 motions for a new trial.
- The court denied Machado-Erazo’s motion to reconsider the denial of severance.
- The court held the evidence supported the jury’s findings of a single RICO conspiracy, the VICAR murder, and the § 924(c) firearm offense.
- The court held venue in the District of Columbia was proper and that a joint trial did not result in the level of prejudice required for severance or a new trial.

## Legal Principles

- Rule 29: A conviction must be sustained if, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, any rational trier of fact could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
- RICO conspiracy (18 U.S.C. § 1962(d)): The government need not prove the defendant personally committed predicate acts; it is sufficient that the defendant agreed that members of the conspiracy would commit racketeering acts to further the enterprise’s objectives.
- Single vs. multiple conspiracies: A jury may find a single conspiracy where evidence shows an interconnected structure and common criminal purposes that link participants and subgroups to the same enterprise.
- VICAR murder (18 U.S.C. § 1959(a)(1)): The government must prove the murder was committed for the purpose of gaining entrance to, maintaining, or increasing position in a racketeering enterprise; evidence of enterprise norms and status incentives can support this element.
- Section 924(c) (18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)): A firearm conviction is supported where evidence shows possession or use during and in relation to a qualifying crime of violence proven at trial.
- Venue in conspiracy cases: Venue is proper in any district where an act in furtherance of the conspiracy occurred; the government may rely on proof that enterprise activity and acts tied to the conspiracy occurred in the district.
- Severance/new trial: Joint trials are favored in conspiracy prosecutions; a defendant must show manifest prejudice beyond ordinary evidentiary spillover, and limiting instructions and the jury’s ability to separate the proof weigh against severance.

## Conclusion

The court upheld the jury’s guilty verdicts, finding sufficient evidence of a single MS-13 RICO conspiracy and the charged VICAR murder and firearm offense, and it rejected challenges to venue and joint trial prejudice, denying acquittal, a new trial, and reconsideration of severance.


United States v. Machado-Erazo, 986 F. Supp. 2d 39 (D.D.C. 2013)