Sufficient evidence for conviction of violent crimes in aid of “racketeering activity”; Racketeering conspiracy; Handling of suspected jury intimidation; Whether the individual jurors should have been questioned; Waiver; Forfeiture; Plain-error review; Denial of defendants’ motions for a mistrial; Burden of proof for proving mistrial-worthy bias stemming from jurors’ external contacts; The district court’s finding of impartiality; Admission of summary charts; Sentencing; Alleyne v United States

The court affirmed the three defendants’ convictions and two of the three sentences, holding that there was “abundant evidence” that defendant-Baskerville was the “chief” of a racketeering enterprise in which defendants-Smith and Springfield participated in violent gang activity. Baskerville (the “Chief of the Streets”), Smith, and Springfield were members of a gang (“Junk Yard Dogs”) that was part of “a gang war that unleashed mayhem and murder in the” suburbs of Memphis. A jury convicted all three of racketeering conspiracy, and Baskerville of murder, attempted murder, and firearm offenses; Springfield of attempted murder and firearm offenses; and Smith of attempted murder and a firearm offense. Baskerville argued that there was insufficient evidence to convict him of violent crimes in aid of racketeering. But the court held there was sufficient evidence that “the Junk Yard Dogs gang engaged in racketeering activity” and that he controlled the gang. Given his “role as Chief of the Streets, the evidence at trial firmly tied him to all the murders and attempted murders. That is true even accepting Baskerville’s point that ‘he was not present at any of the crimes.’” The court also rejected Smith’s challenge to sufficiency of the evidence to support his racketeering conspiracy conviction. All three defendants argued that the district court failed to properly deal with the allegations of jury intimidation. The court concluded that “Springfield waived his challenge by arguing against jury questioning” in the district court, and “Smith at best forfeited any request for individual questioning of the jurors[,]“ with the result that his appellate argument was subject to “the plain-error standard, which he” could not meet. The “district court involved defendants at every step of the investigation, twice interviewed the foreperson on the record, credited the foreperson’s repeated assurances of juror impartiality, confirmed that the jury had not attributed the alleged intimidation to any defendant, and was ‘persuaded’ by defendants not to individually question the remaining jurors.” Further, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying their motions for mistrial. The court noted that “[p]rejudice is not to be presumed” and defendants had the burden of proving that “‘unauthorized communications with jurors resulted in actual juror partiality.’” The court determined that the record evidence “uniformly indicates that the jury remained impartial.” But as to sentencing, the government agreed that Smith’s 10-year mandatory-minimum “for discharging a firearm violated Alleyne” and that remand for resentencing was warranted. Affirmed except as to Smith’s sentence for his firearm conviction, which was vacated, and remanded for resentencing on that conviction.