The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld the convictions and life sentences of Mark Leroy Dencklau and Chad Leroy Erickson for their roles in the kidnapping and murder of a former member of the Gypsy Joker Motorcycle Club (GJMC). The court rejected a series of arguments made by the defendants, solidifying the original verdict from the District Court of Oregon.
The Crimes and the Charges
Dencklau and Erickson were found guilty on multiple counts stemming from the 2015 murder of Robert Huggins, also known as “Bagger,” a former member of the GJMC. The charges included:
* Murder in violation of the Violent Crimes in Aid of Racketeering statute (VICAR)
* VICAR kidnapping resulting in death
* Kidnapping resulting in death
* Conspiracy to commit kidnapping resulting in death
Dencklau was also convicted of racketeering conspiracy.
Key Legal Arguments and Court’s Rulings
The defendants presented several arguments during the appeal, all of which were dismissed by the court. Here’s a breakdown of the key arguments and the court’s responses:
1. Sufficiency of the VICAR Indictments
* Dencklau and Erickson’s Argument: The defendants argued that the indictments for the VICAR charges (Counts 2 and 3) were not specific enough because they did not list the specific elements of the state law crimes that were the basis for the VICAR charges.
* The Court’s Ruling: The court held that the VICAR indictments were sufficient because they followed the language of the VICAR statute itself. The court stated that it was not necessary to enumerate all the elements of the underlying state law crimes in the indictment. The court cited previous rulings to support this view, emphasizing that the indictment must inform the defendant of the charge and allow them to plead double jeopardy.
2. Pribbernow’s Testimony
Dencklau raised several objections to the district court’s rulings regarding the testimony of Tiler Pribbernow, another GJMC associate.
* Dencklau’s Arguments:
* Exclusion of evidence of Pribbernow’s reputation for violence.
* Exclusion of evidence of Pribbernow’s past violent acts.
* Barring of Dencklau from re-cross-examining Pribbernow about his military discharge.
* The Court’s Ruling:
* The court found that the exclusion of evidence of Pribbernow’s reputation for violence was appropriate because the evidence was inadmissible under Rule 404.
* The court found that the district court did not err in excluding evidence of Pribbernow’s past violent acts because it was not directly relevant to the case.
* The court held that the district court was correct in barring re-cross-examination because the matter of the military discharge was not “new matter.”
3. Expert Testimony on Erickson’s Mental Deficits
* Erickson’s Argument: Erickson argued that the district court should not have excluded expert testimony about his alleged mental deficits. He claimed that the exclusion violated his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights to present a defense.
* The Court’s Ruling: The court upheld the exclusion of the expert testimony, finding that the district court did not abuse its discretion. The court reasoned that the expert testimony was not relevant under Rule 702 and that its potential to mislead the jury outweighed its probative value under Rule 403. The court also found that the exclusion of the evidence did not violate Erickson’s constitutional rights.
4. Evidence on Inflammatory Topics
* Dencklau and Erickson’s Arguments: The defendants argued that the district court erred by allowing the use of certain evidence related to the GJMC, which they claimed was inflammatory. This included:
* The use of the word “gang” to describe the GJMC.
* Discussion of a “culture of misogyny” within the GJMC.
* The use of race-based evidence to show the GJMC’s cohesion.
* The Court’s Ruling: The court rejected these arguments, finding that the district court did not abuse its discretion. The court stated that the use of the word “gang” was not unduly prejudicial. The court found that the evidence regarding the GJMC’s treatment of women and its racially exclusionary policies was relevant to the nature of the enterprise.
5. Comments About Defense Counsel
* Dencklau and Erickson’s Argument: The defendants argued that the court should have taken action against the witness who stated that defense counsel was lying.
* The Court’s Ruling: The court found that the district court did not plainly err in its handling of the witness’s comment. The court noted that the comment was isolated and that the defense did not object at the time.
6. Purpose Element of the VICAR Offenses
* Dencklau and Government’s Argument: They both agreed that the jury instruction on the VICAR purpose should be reviewed for plain error.
* The Court’s Ruling: The court affirmed the district court. The court’s jury instruction clearly communicated the required VICAR purpose.
7. Jury Instruction on Potential Punishment
* Dencklau and Erickson’s Argument: The defendants argued that the jury instructions regarding the potential punishment faced by the defendants or cooperating witnesses were incorrect.
* The Court’s Ruling: The court found that the district court did not err in its jury instructions. The court found that the instructions, taken as a whole, were a good faith attempt to balance the need to inform the jury about the cooperating witnesses’ plea deals with the need to ensure that the jury did not focus on the defendants’ potential sentences.
8. Erickson’s Eighth Amendment Claim
* Erickson’s Argument: Erickson challenged his mandatory life sentence as a violation of the Eighth Amendment, which prohibits cruel and unusual punishment.
* The Court’s Ruling: The court rejected Erickson’s argument, citing previous court precedent that a mandatory life sentence without the possibility of parole does not violate the Eighth Amendment.
The Broader Implications
The Ninth Circuit’s decision reinforces the legal standards for VICAR indictments and the admissibility of evidence in criminal trials. The court’s rulings on the various evidentiary issues demonstrate the wide discretion afforded to district courts in managing trials, particularly when dealing with potentially inflammatory or prejudicial evidence. The decision also upholds the constitutionality of mandatory life sentences in this context, as established by prior court rulings.