Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status
From our private database of 16,500+ case briefs...

United States v. Licavoli

United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
725 F.2d 1040 (6th Cir. 1984)


James Licavoli (defendant) was an organized-crime leader. Anthony Libertore, John Calandra, Ronald Carabbia, Pasquale Cisternino, and Kenneth Ciarcia (defendants) were all members of the organization. In 1976, all six defendants killed Danny Greene with a car bomb and were tried for the murder in state court. Cisternino, Carabbia, and Ciarcia were convicted, while Licavoli and Calandra were acquitted. In a separate chain of events, Ciarcia asked a federal employee to gather information about investigations into Ciarcia, Libertore, and Licavoli, in exchange for payment. All six defendants were charged with bribery and conspiracy to commit bribery and were tried in federal court. Ciarcia pleaded guilty, while Libertore was convicted. All six defendants were then tried in federal court for conspiring to participate in an enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activities in violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C § 1962. Under RICO, a defendant must have committed more than one act of racketeering activity chargeable under state law in order for a state crime to be considered a predicate act under RICO. Racketeering activity includes any act or threat involving murder. All six defendants were found guilty of violating RICO and appealed, arguing that murder and conspiracy to murder were not both chargeable under state law and therefore could not serve as predicate offenses under RICO. Licavoli and Calandra argued that conspiring to murder Greene and murdering Greene could not both serve as predicate acts, because Licavoli and Calandra had been acquitted in state court. Libertore and Ciarcia argued that bribery could not serve as a predicate offense, because Libertore and Ciarcia had already been convicted of the offense.

Rule of Law


Holding and Reasoning (Kennedy, J.)

Concurrence (Merritt, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 409,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 16,500 briefs, keyed to 223 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Questions & Answers

Have a question about this case?

Sign up for a free 7-day trial and ask it

Sign up for a FREE 7-day trial