United States v. Portillo
United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
969 F.3d 144 (2020)
- Written by Jamie Milne, JD
Facts
John Portillo and Jeffrey Pike (defendants) were high-ranking members of the Bandidos Outlaws Motorcycle Club. The government asserted various charges against Portillo and Pike in connection with a conspiracy claim under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. Among other things, the government alleged that (1) Portillo had instructed Bandidos member Richard Merla to kill someone who had killed another Bandidos member and (2) Portillo and Pike had instructed brothers Johnny and Robbie Romo to kill someone who was trying to start a rival gang. Merla and the Romo brothers eventually confessed their roles to police and agreed to testify against Portillo and Pike. Portillo and Pike’s cross-examination of the witnesses at trial suggested that the Romo brothers were lying in hopes of leniency in their plea agreements and that Merla’s memory of events had degraded by the time of the trial. The district judge allowed the government to introduce all three witnesses’ confessions as prior consistent statements to rehabilitate the witnesses’ credibility. Portillo and Pike were convicted. On appeal, they argued that the district judge erred in admitting the witnesses’ confessions because the requirements under Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(1)(B) were not satisfied.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Higginson, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 911,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 47,100 briefs, keyed to 997 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.




