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

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Petitioner Hector Enamorado was convicted 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 codefendant’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 murder, thereby specifically implicating Enamorado—who had maintained his innocence—in the murder. The questions presented are: 1. 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, 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 racketeering activity—requires proof that a conspirator knowingly agreed to facilitate the activities of those who are operating or managing the RICO enterprise, 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. i