Terry v. Enomoto

testimony concerning the defendant’s physical appearance around the time of the crime is not rebuttal evidence within the meaning of Rule 12.1 | “At a minimum, a 1983 plaintiff must show that a supervisory official at least implicitly authorized, approved, or knowingly acquiesced in the unconstitutional conduct.” | RICO conspiracy defendants need only agree to be a member of the conspiracy; they need not agree to commit two predicate offenses individually | “At a minimum, a 1983 plaintiff must show that a supervisory official at least implicitly authorized, approved or knowingly acquiesced in the unconstitutional conduct.” | "The statutory language, however, does not require proof that a defendant participated personally, or agreed to participate personally, in two predicate offenses. Read in context, section 1962(d | “[T]he testimony ... fails to establish that appellees intentionally or negligently deprived Bellamy of his meals to the degree that a jury could find an Eighth Amendment violation.” | “The statutory language, however, does not require proof that a defendant participated personally, or agreed to participate personally, in two predicate offenses. Read in context, section 1962(d | liability under section 1983 in a defendant’s personal capacity must be predicated upon some showing of direct, active participation in the alleged misconduct | jury reasonably could infer that defendant turned fugitive because of co-conspirator's cooperation | jury reasonably could infer that defendant turned fugitive because of co-conspirator’s cooperation | “Proof of an agreement the objective of which is a substantive violation of RICO (such as conducting the affairs of an enterprise through a pattern of racketeering) is sufficient to establish a violation of section 1962(d).”