Read the Mark Meadows Ruling in Georgia


Page 18 of 49

Case 1:23-cv-03621-SCJ Document 69 Filed 09/08/23 Page 18 of 49

“Racketeering activity” includes the commission (or attempted commission or solicitation, coercion, or intimidation of another to commit) of a variety of Georgia criminal statutes. See id. § 16-14-3(5)(A). It also can include violations of certain types of state or federal laws outside the State of Georgia. Id. § 16-143(5)(B)-(C).

The RICO conspiracy charge only requires, at the least, that one coconspirator commit an “overt act to effect the object of the conspiracy[.]” Id. § 1614-4(c)(1). While not specifically defined in the RICO statute, the Georgia Supreme Court has indicated that an overt act under the general conspiracy provision, O.C.G.A. § 16-14-8, means “a specific type of open or manifest act made in furtherance of a conspiracy to commit a crime.” Bradford v. State, 285 Ga. 1, 4, 673 S.E.2d 201, 204 (2009). Critically, for conspiracy crimes, “the indictment [need not] set forth the particulars of the overt act.” State v. Pittman, 302 Ga. App. 531, 535, 690 S.E.2d 661, 664 (2010) (quoting Bradford v. State, 283 Ga. App. 75, 78, 640 S.E.2d 630, 633 (2006), rev’d on other grounds Bradford, 285 Ga. at 1, 673 S.E. at 203). Indeed, “the government is not required to prove the overt act specified in the indictment.” Nordahl v. State, 306 Ga. 15, 26, 829 S.E. 2d 99, 109 (2019). Nor, must the State ultimately prove that each co-conspirator


Source link

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *