After Boyle was convicted of 11 of 12 counts against him, including the RICO counts, and was sentenced to prison, he appealed on grounds that the instructions as to what would constitute proof of an enterprise incorrectly set forth the law. The circuit court affirmed his convictions, and he appealed to the U. S. Supreme Court. How do you think the high court ruled and why? [Boyle v. United States, 129 S. Ct. 2237 (2009).]

Question

Law

John Rasmussen

21 October, 10:17

After Boyle was convicted of 11 of 12 counts against him, including the RICO counts, and was sentenced to prison, he appealed on grounds that the instructions as to what would constitute proof of an enterprise incorrectly set forth the law. The circuit court affirmed his convictions, and he appealed to the U. S. Supreme Court. How do you think the high court ruled and why? [Boyle v. United States, 129 S. Ct. 2237 (2009).]

+3

Answers (1)

Know the Answer?

Lana Ponce · Answer 1

The high court ruled based on the knowledge that the proof of a pattern of racketeering activity may be sufficient in a particular case to permit a jury to infer the existence of an association-in-fact enterprise. The RICO Act makes it illegal to be a part of an enterprise engaged in racketeering.

The court claimed that the RICO act means "Enterprise" to be more than just the gathering of a group of people, it refers to business-like entities that have an existence apart from the predicate acts committed by their employees or associates. This interpretation of the court will allow juries to infer the existence of an enterprise in every case involving a pattern of racketeering activity undertaken by two or more associates.