The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

The alleged conspiracy centers around Sutherland (D) who was a judge of the Municipal Court. Ds agreed that Maynard and Walker would each collect traffic tickets from his or her friends and associates along with the statutory fine and a $10 surcharge and that the tickets would be delivered to Sutherland, and the cases would be transferred to his docket, and they would be favorably disposed of and that the monies collected would be split between D and whichever other defendant collected and delivered the ticket. The indictment frames the conspiracy as a single agreement among all three Ds, but the government did not attempt at trial to prove any agreement between Walker and Maynard. P's position was that the conspiracy, in this case, the hub of it, is D, and his activities with these other co-conspirators. D operated with Walker and then operated separately with Maynard. P contends they are linked in a single criminal enterprise and thus may be tried together under RICO. Ds were convicted and appealed. Ds challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to support their convictions under 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d). Each argues that the government failed to establish a 'pattern of racketeering activity' since the evidence does not specifically demonstrate 'at least two acts of racketeering activity,' as required by 18 U.S.C. § 1961(5). Walker argues that the evidence does not sufficiently establish an agreement between herself and D.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.