Petitioner Hector Enamorado was convicte d on a single count of conspiracy to
violate the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d). During closing arguments, a code fendant's counsel decided to make the
jury's task "a little bit easy" by confessing his client's role in the criminal enterprise
as a whole and in an underlying murd er, thereby specifically implicating
Enamorado—who had maintained his innocence—in the murder. The questions presented are:

1. Whether a confession by codefendant's coun sel on behalf of hi s client during a
multi-defendant trial is subject to Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123
(1968), and violates the Sixth Amendment rights of a non-confessing codefendant implicated by that confession, an issue on which the circuits are
split.

2. Whether a RICO conspiracy to violate 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c)—by conducting or
participating, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of a RICO enterprise's affairs through a pattern of racketeer ing activity—requires proof that a
conspirator knowingly agreed to facilit ate the activities of those who are
operating or managing the RICO enterp rise, a standard that harmonizes
Reves v. Ernst & Young , 507 U.S. 170 (1993), and Salinas v. United States ,
522 U.S. 52 (1997).

3. Whether state law RICO predicates are elements of a RICO offense that must
be found by a jury.

Whether a confession by codefendant's counsel on behalf of his client during a multi-defendant trial is subject to Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 (1968), and violates the Sixth Amendment rights of a non-confessing codefendant implicated by that confession