Russello v. United States
- Decided
- November 1, 1983
- Docket
- 82-472
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
Cited 2,703 timesNo negative treatment found in this library
What later courts said
- holding that when a legislature includes language in an earlier version of a bill but deletes it prior to enactment, it may be presumed that the deletion was intentional — In Re: Century Cleaning Services, Inc. Debtor, United States Trustee v. Garvey, Schubert & Barer Michael Batlan, Trustee (1999)
- holding that the rule of lenity does not apply to the RICO forfeiture provision because the language of that provision is clear — United States v. Shigemura (2014)
- holding that "appellants may not take the McNary escape route" for claims challenging a general INS practice "because section 1421 provides an adequate review for their challenge" — De Dandrade v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec. (2019)
Each line is a later court’s own words about this case, not a summary. Read the opinion before relying on it.
How the opinion begins
Justice Blackmun delivered the opinion of the Court. This is yet another case concerning the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) chapter of the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970. Pub. L. 91-452, Title IX, 84 Stat. 941, as amended, 18 U. S. C. §§ 1961-1968 (1982 ed.). At issue here is the interpretation of the chapter’s forfeiture provision, § 1963(a)(1), and, specifically, the meaning of the words “any interest [the defendant] has acquired . . . in violation of section 1962.”
On June 8, 1977, petitioner Joseph C. Russello and others were indicted for racketeering, conspiracy, and mail fraud, in violation of 18 U. S. C. §§ 1341, 1962(c) and (d), and 2. App. 5. After a jury trial in the United States District Court for [*18] the Middle District of Florida, petitioner was convicted as charged in four counts of the indictment. The jury then returned special verdicts for the forfeiture to the United States, under 18 U. S. C. § 1963(a), of four payments, aggregating $340,043.09, made to petitioner by a fire insurance company. App. 54-57. These verdicts related to the racketeering activities charged in the second count of the indictment under which petitioner had been convicted. The District Court, accordingly, entered a judgment of forfeiture against petitioner in that amount.
Id., at 58.
Statutes cited
Cite this
Russello v. United States, 464 U.S. 16 (1983)Read the full opinion
Reading the library on this site uses your account’s daily calls, the same as the connector and the API. The Free plan needs no card. Calls a day on each plan.