Affirmation of "Crime of Violence" Classification for Attempted Murder in Aid of Racketeering under 18 U.S.C. § 1959(a)(5): 2d Cir.

Introduction

The case United States of America v. Steven Pastore, Salvatore Delligatti, adjudicated by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on June 8, 2022, addresses critical questions surrounding the classification of certain racketeering-related offenses as "crimes of violence" under federal law. Salvatore Delligatti, an associate of the Genovese Crime Family, was convicted on multiple charges, including racketeering conspiracy and attempted murder in aid of racketeering. A pivotal issue on appeal was whether his conviction for possessing a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence was valid, particularly in light of the Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Davis.

Summary of the Judgment

The Second Circuit Court affirmed Delligatti's conviction, holding that his substantive VICAR (Violent Crimes in Aid of Racketeering) offense for attempted murder in aid of racketeering under 18 U.S.C. § 1959(a)(5) constitutes a "crime of violence" under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). The court applied the modified categorical approach post-United States v. Davis, concluding that Delligatti's predicate offense of attempted murder under New York law involved the intentional use of physical force, thereby satisfying the elements of a "crime of violence." Consequently, the court upheld the validity of the § 924(c) conviction, affirming the district court's judgment.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively references several key precedents that shaped the court's decision:

United States v. Davis: The Supreme Court ruled that the residual clause of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(B) is unconstitutionally vague.
United States v. Laurent: The Second Circuit held that RICO conspiracies cannot qualify as crimes of violence, even if they involve violent conduct.
Mathis v. United States: Established the modified categorical approach for offenses with multiple elements or alternatives.
United States v. Scott: Clarified that both affirmative acts and omissions involving intentional use of force qualify as crimes of violence.
United States v. Castleman: Defined the intentional causation of bodily injury as involving the use of physical force, reinforcing the categorization of certain offenses as violent.

These precedents collectively informed the court's approach to interpreting statutory definitions of "crime of violence" and applying them to complex criminal conduct involving racketeering and attempted murder.

Legal Reasoning

The court employed the modified categorical approach to determine whether Delligatti's substantive VICAR offense qualifies as a "crime of violence" under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). This approach involves:

Examining the elements of the offense as defined by statute without considering specific facts of the case.
Identifying the minimum criminal conduct necessary for conviction.
Comparing these elements to the statutory definition of a "crime of violence."

Applying this framework, the court analyzed Delligatti's conviction for attempted murder under New York law, which inherently involves the intentional use of physical force. Despite the Supreme Court's decision in Davis, which invalidated the residual clause, the remaining elements clause provided sufficient grounds to categorize the offense as violent. The court rejected Delligatti's argument that attempted murder could be considered non-violent due to the possibility of omission-based actions, reinforcing that intentional acts leading toward forceful outcomes unequivocally fall within the bounds of "crime of violence."

Impact

The affirmation in United States v. Delligatti solidifies the interpretation of "crime of violence" within the framework of Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) and Violent Crimes in Aid of Racketeering Act (VICAR). Key impacts include:

Clarification of Legal Standards: Reinforces the application of the modified categorical approach to determine violent offenses in the context of racketeering.
Enhanced Penalties: Upholds the use of stringent penalties for individuals involved in violent racketeering activities, ensuring that offenses like attempted murder continue to carry significant legal consequences.
Guidance for Future Cases: Provides a clear judicial pathway for courts to categorize complex racketeering-related offenses as violent, aiding in consistency across similar cases.

Additionally, this judgment underscores the judiciary's stance on combating organized crime by effectively categorizing violent attempts within racketeering enterprises, thereby facilitating the application of comprehensive legal measures against such criminal activities.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Understanding the nuanced legal concepts in this judgment is crucial for comprehending its implications:

Categorical Approach: A legal method for determining whether a defendant's actions fall under a specific criminal category by examining the statutory elements without regard to the defendant's specific intent or circumstances.
Modified Categorical Approach: An adaptation of the categorical approach used for complex statutes that define multiple offenses or list elements in the alternative. It may involve consulting documents like indictments or jury instructions to accurately identify the offense of conviction.
Crime of Violence: Under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), a "crime of violence" is defined as a felony that involves the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against a person or property. This classification affects sentencing and eligibility for firearm possession restrictions.
VICAR: The Violent Crimes in Aid of Racketeering Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1959(a), which imposes restrictions and penalties on individuals involved in violent activities that aid racketeering organizations.
Residual Clause: A provision in a statute that attempts to cover offenses not explicitly listed by defining them in terms of similarity to other offenses. In this context, such clauses were deemed unconstitutionally vague by the Supreme Court in Davis.

By breaking down these concepts, defendants, attorneys, and legal scholars can better navigate the complexities of federal criminal statutes related to racketeering and violent crimes.

Conclusion

The Second Circuit's decision in United States v. Delligatti reaffirms the classification of attempted murder in aid of racketeering as a "crime of violence" under federal law. By meticulously applying the modified categorical approach and referencing pertinent precedents, the court ensured a robust interpretation aligned with both statutory definitions and constitutional mandates. This judgment not only upholds Delligatti's conviction and sentence but also sets a clear precedent for the treatment of similar offenses in the future, reinforcing the judiciary's role in combating organized and violent criminal activities through precise legal frameworks.

Affirmation of "Crime of Violence" Classification for Attempted Murder in Aid of Racketeering under 18 U.S.C. § 1959(a)(5)