Page 3
Involvement in Conspiracy Before, After 18, Warrants Trial As Adult—Ninth Circuit
By a MetNews Staff Writer
The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals yesterday upheld an order denying a man’s motion to dismiss an indictment charging him with participation in a racketeering conspiracy as part of a Los Angeles street gang, rejecting his contention that because some of the alleged conduct occurred while he was a minor and were charged during his minority, he cannot be tried as an adult.
Senior Circuit Judge Richard C. Tallman wrote the opinion rejecting the contention of Edwin Mendez that the Juvenile Delinquency Act (“JDA”) bars the prosecution of him under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”) without resort to adult transfer procedures. The decision upholds an order by District Court Judge Otis D. Wright II of the Central District of California.
“We must decide whether the JDA precludes the government from prosecuting a person as an adult for a continuing conspiracy that includes both pre- and post- majority conduct after the court dismisses a JDA information charging that person with conspiracy based solely on pre- majority conduct,” Tallman said.
Declaring that it does not, he explained:
“When a minor ratifies his pre-majority conduct by continuing to participate in an ongoing criminal conspiracy after his eighteenth birthday, the offense is not insulated by the JDA’s procedural enclave.”
Juvenile Delinquency Charges
Mendez was charged on March 29, 2019, in a seven-count juvenile information, with offenses that included two first-degree murders, allegedly committed as a member of the MS-13 gang prior to his turning 18 on June 16, 2017. In July 2019, a grand jury returned a second superseding indictment (“SSI”) charging new offenses including narcotics trafficking, some relating to alleged conduct before, and some relating to purported crimes after, Mendez’s eighteenth birthday.
On the government’s motion, the juvenile charges, including the two murders were dismissed. Mendez contended that once the government commenced prosecuting him as a juvenile, it was obliged to continue prosecuting him as such.
Tallman said that Mendez was, statutorily, a “juvenile” at the time he was charged by information with offenses, including two murders, because the alleged offenses had taken place before his eighteenth birthday. The issue, he said, is “whether the racketeering conspiracy charged in the SSI was an ‘act of juvenile delinquency’ or was instead a majority-spanning criminal offense for which he may be tried and convicted as an adult.”
Effect of Ratification
Resolving that issue, he declared:
“We also hold that, because Mendez allegedly continued to participate in the racketeering conspiracy on his eighteenth birthday and beyond, his racketeering conspiracy offense was not an act of juvenile delinquency under the JDA….To be fair, there is no dispute that JDA jurisdiction attached to Mendez’s alleged acts of juvenile delinquency such as the completed murders in furtherance of the pre-13 RICO conspiracy…, as those offenses were complete before he turned 18. But at the moment he decided not to withdraw, but rather ratified his pre-majority conduct by continuing to participate in the conspiracy after his eighteenth birthday, the JDA’s exclusive jurisdiction over the offense—and the required application of its transfer protocol—ceased….Consequently, the district court has adult criminal jurisdiction over the majority- spanning RICO conspiracy offense charged in the SSI.”
The case is United States v. Mendez, 21-50086.
Copyright 2022, Metropolitan News Company