United States v. Acevedo: Standards for Sufficiency and Jury Instruction in 18 U.S.C. §1959(a)(1) Murder in Aid of Racketeering

Introduction

United States v. Acevedo (2d Cir. 2025) is a summary order issued by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on April 22, 2025. The defendant, Christopher Acevedo, was convicted by a jury in the Eastern District of New York of two federal offenses: murder in aid of racketeering under 18 U.S.C. § 1959(a)(1) and causing death through the use of a firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 924(j)(1). Acevedo appealed on multiple grounds, including sufficiency of the evidence, jury instructions, evidentiary rulings, sentencing authority, and claims of ineffective assistance of counsel.

This commentary examines the Court’s reasoning and the practical effects of its decision. Although summary orders do not have precedential effect, the decision in Acevedo provides guidance on how the Second Circuit applies longstanding standards for reviewing jury verdicts, crafting jury instructions, and evaluating evidentiary and sentencing questions under federal criminal law.

Summary of the Judgment

The Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s November 15, 2023 judgment in all respects. Key holdings include:

Sufficiency of the Evidence: Viewed in the light most favorable to the government, the evidence—surveillance video, cell‐phone location and Bluetooth data, eyewitness testimony, and physical evidence—was sufficient to prove both the murder in aid of racketeering and the firearm‐related murder charges beyond a reasonable doubt.
Jury Instructions: The court’s instructions on conspiracy and attempt were properly limited to the racketeering element and did not dilute the requirement to prove intent to kill. Any omission of a Rosemond instruction for aiding and abetting the § 924(j) count did not constitute plain error, as the evidence showed Acevedo himself pulled the trigger.
Evidentiary Rulings: Admission of co‐conspirator statements, prior racketeering acts, a music video, and other evidence complied with Federal Rules of Evidence 801(d)(2)(E) and 403. The confidential‐informant status of a witness did not bar introduction of statements by Acevedo’s coconspirators.
Sentencing Authority: The district court was authorized to impose consecutive life sentences for the two convictions, each carrying a maximum penalty of life imprisonment.
Ineffective Assistance of Counsel: On direct appeal, the Court declined to evaluate trial counsel’s performance and directed Acevedo to raise any ineffectiveness claims under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, given that strategic decisions are not readily reviewable on the existing record.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The Court’s decision rests on established Second Circuit and Supreme Court precedents concerning standards of review and interpretive rules:

Sufficiency Review: United States v. Kelly, 128 F.4th 387, 408 (2d Cir. 2025) and United States v. Capers, 20 F.4th 105, 113 (2d Cir. 2021). These cases reaffirm the rule that a verdict must be sustained if any rational trier of fact could find each element beyond a reasonable doubt, crediting all inferences in the government’s favor.
Elements of § 1959(a)(1): United States v. Concepcion, 983 F.2d 369, 381 (2d Cir. 1992). Concepcion breaks down the five elements required for a murder‐in‐aid‐of‐racketeering conviction, including proof of enterprise membership and the defendant’s motive to maintain or increase his position.
Aiding and Abetting Firearm Offense: Rosemond v. United States, 572 U.S. 65 (2014). The Court examined whether an aiding‐and‐abetting instruction must include a requirement that the defendant know of a confederate’s firearm possession.
Hearsay and Co‐conspirator Statements: Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)(E) and United States v. Coppola, 671 F.3d 220, 244 (2d Cir. 2012), which set out the standard for admitting coconspirator statements and weigh probative value against unfair prejudice.

Legal Reasoning

Sufficiency of Evidence: The Court meticulously recited the surveillance evidence showing Acevedo alone driving a white BMW to the shooting site, combined with cell‐phone location pings and Bluetooth connections linking his phone to the vehicle. Twelve shots were fired from the BMW into the victim’s car. Post‐shooting movements—such as Acevedo’s girlfriend hiding the BMW under a tarp and disposing of a bag believed to contain a gun—further supported an inference of guilt. The Court concluded that these facts allowed any reasonable jury to find each element of § 1959(a)(1) and § 924(j) beyond a reasonable doubt.

Jury Instructions: Acevedo argued that conspiracy and attempt instructions applied to the murder charge and that an aiding‐and‐abetting instruction without a Rosemond requirement was erroneous. The panel determined:

The conspiracy and attempt instructions pertained solely to the racketeering element, not to the murder or intent to kill.
Even if a Rosemond instruction were warranted for the § 924(j) count, any error was harmless because the government’s evidence never suggested a secondary shooter or a mere accomplice scenario.

Evidentiary Rulings: The Court applied Rule 801(d)(2)(E) to admit statements by coconspirators, explaining that the telling factor is the declarant’s status, not the witness‐informant’s. Rule 403 challenges to prior acts and a gang‐themed music video were rejected because the probative value of demonstrating the structure, motive, and identity of the “Wood City” enterprise outweighed any risk of unfair prejudice.

Sentencing and Counsel Claims: The statutory text authorizes life sentences for both § 1959(a)(1) and § 924(j)(1) convictions, so imposing consecutive life terms fell squarely within the sentencing range. On the ineffective assistance claim, the panel emphasized that many objections turn on trial‐level strategy and facts not fully developed in the appeal record; such claims are better addressed in a collateral § 2255 proceeding.

Impact

Though not binding precedent, United States v. Acevedo provides practical guidance on several recurring issues in federal criminal litigation:

Rigorous Application of Sufficiency Review: Demonstrates how circuits will credit surveillance, digital data, and circumstantial evidence in murder‐in‐aid‐of‐racketeering cases.
Clarity on Jury Instruction Scope: Reinforces that instructions on conspiracy or attempt must be carefully tethered to the elements they address and should not bleed into unrelated charges.
Rosemond’s Limited Reach: Signals that the Supreme Court’s aiding‐and‐abetting firearm‐possession logic will not automatically apply to every § 924 count—especially where the guide offense does not require a firearm.
Deference on Evidentiary Disputes: Affirms that trial judges have broad discretion under Rules 401–403 to admit evidence of gang structure, prior acts, and multimedia content when probative of motive and enterprise membership.
Procedural Path for Counsel Claims: Underlines the principle that direct appeals are not always the proper forum for in‐depth ineffective assistance inquiries.

Complex Concepts Simplified

RICO Enterprise: A group of individuals associated in fact that engages in a pattern of racketeering activity. Under § 1959(a)(1), the government must show the defendant’s motive was to maintain or increase his position in that group.
“Light Most Favorable” Standard: On review for sufficiency, all reasonable inferences are drawn in favor of the prosecution; if any rational juror could convict, the verdict stands.
Rosemond Instruction: A requirement that an aider‐and‐abettor know of a confederate’s firearm possession before that instruction binds a jury. Here, the panel found no plain error since the evidence pointed to Acevedo as the shooter.
Rule 801(d)(2)(E) Coconspirator Exception: Statements by a coconspirator during and in furtherance of the conspiracy are non‐hearsay if the declarant and the defendant shared the criminal plan, even if the testifying witness is no longer part of the conspiracy.
Rule 403 Balancing: A judge may exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion, or waste of time.

Conclusion

United States v. Acevedo serves as a comprehensive illustration of how the Second Circuit applies established criminal-law principles at the appellate level. The decision reinforces:

The rigorous application of the sufficiency‐of‐the‐evidence standard in cases involving § 1959(a)(1).
The necessity of precise jury instructions that align with each statutory element.
The broad discretion entrusted to district judges in admitting coconspirator statements and gang‐related evidence.
The statutory authority to impose maximum penalties for violent RICO‐related offenses.
The procedural prudence of addressing ineffective assistance of counsel claims in collateral proceedings rather than on direct appeal when the trial record is insufficiently developed.

Collectively, these rulings offer valuable guidance for practitioners and lower courts handling complex racketeering and firearm‐related prosecutions under federal law.