Cops’ Convictions for RICO, Related Offenses Upheld

US v. Taylor: Taylor and his codefendant, Hersl, were Baltimore police officers who were involved with a number of others in a scheme to rob suspected drug dealers and falsify overtime reports. As a result, they were convicted by a jury of RICO conspiracy, substantive racketeering, and Hobbs Act robbery. They were sentenced to 216 months in prison and appealed on numerous grounds.

The Fourth Circuit affirmed Taylor and Hersl’s convictions and sentences. First, the court rejected their argument that there was insufficient evidence of one of the two racketeering acts charged as part of the RICO count, wire fraud. Specifically, the defendants argued that there was insufficient evidence to show that it was reasonably foreseeable to them that the false overtime reports – which were processed by a company in another state and resulted in paychecks being sent or electronic funds transfers – used the “wires.” The court disagreed, noting that the interstate nexus portion of wire fraud was a jurisdictional element and that there was sufficient evidence of the defendants’ familiarity with the overtime time and payroll scheme that it was foreseeable that the wires would be involved. Second, the court applied that holding in rejecting the argument that there was insufficient evidence to support the substantive racketeering count, since it was based on multiple acts of wire fraud. Third, the district court affirmed the convictions for Hobbs Act robbery, based on separate events. For Taylor, the court concluded there was sufficient evidence to conclude that he stole some of the money seized from a drug dealer during a purchase of drugs based on the dealer’s testimony about the terms of the deal and the lesser amount of money turned over to police evidence control. For Hersl, the court concluded there was sufficient evidence to show that he was involved in a warrantless search of another drug dealer’s home, during which cash was seized and a portion of it divided up by the officers involved. Finally, the court found no abuse of discretion with regard to several evidentiary issues and concluded that the defendants’ sentences were substantively reasonable.