noting that the trial protected “each defendant’s rights by instructing the jury that it should consider the evidence separately as to each defendant in each count.”
How later courts described this case
- noting that the trial protected “each defendant’s rights by instructing the jury that it should consider the evidence separately as to each defendant in each count.”
- finding that the office of Madison County Sheriff was a RICO enterprise
- upholding claim that Sheriffs Office was corrupted by bribes paid to the sheriff and deputy sheriff in a towing and prostitution payoff scheme
- holding Madison County Sheriffs Office, like other public entities, is a proper RICO enterprise
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
SWYGERT, Circuit Judge,
dissenting.
Although I originally voted to reverse these convictions on the ground that the RICO statute could not be applied to public entities, 1 because of the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Turkette, - U.S. -, 101 S.Ct. 2524 , 69 L.Ed.2d 246 (1981), I am compelled to vote with the majority on the RICO issue. I join, however, in the dissents filed by Chief Judge Fairchild and Judge Cudahy on the issues of joinder and severance.
. See my dissent in United States v. Grzywacz, 603 F.2d 682, 690 (7th Cir. 1979), cert. denied. 446 U.S. 935 , 100 S.Ct. 2152 , 64 L.Ed.2d 788 (1980).