Winnie T. Pooh, a New York building inspector who accepts bribes from developers is charged with violating the New York official misconduct statute. His trial in state court results in an acquittal. Christopher Robin, another building inspector who also accepts bribes, is later charged with official misconduct under the same statute, but the trial court dismisses the case because the prosecution is barred by the New York statute of limitations.
A year later, a federal grand jury indicts Pooh and Robin for violating Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), citing only violations of the New York official misconduct statute as predicate crimes. Does the RICO indictment properly allege offenses that are chargeable and punishable under New York law?
Please write an IRAC essay discussing this issue.
In addition, please answer the following question in one or two paragraphs.
Assume Pooh and Robin's indictment does not name any state predicate crimes. Instead, it alleges that the predicate crime is bribery of public officials, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 201. The indictment charges Pooh and Robin with five counts of § 201 bribery and one RICO count. The jury acquits them of bribery but convicts them on the RICO charge. Should the RICO convictions stand? Does the jury's verdict of acquittal on the counts charging bribery-the predicate crime-necessarily indicate insufficient evidence to convict on the RICO count?