Whether the First Circuit misapplied RICO-conspiracy, RICO-predicate-offenses, general-understanding, specific-understanding, equipoise, accessory-after-the-fact

Questions Presented for Review 1. Whether the First Circuit misapplied this Court’s rulings on RICO Conspiracy by approving an instruction allowing a jury to convict if it determined that that the defendant “shared a general understanding” of the RICO-predicate offenses that would be committed by alleged coconspirators, rather than “a specific understanding” of them, as requested by the defense, where the jury renders a general verdict, and even though the evidence was in equipoise as to whether the MS18 clique’s conspiracy was to kill (a RICO-predicate offense) or merely assault (not a RICO-predicate offense) rival gang members? 2. Whether the First Circuit misinterpreted Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., and its progeny when it sanctioned the District Court’s abdication of its gatekeeping function over FBI Special Agent Jeffrey Wood’s expert testimony by failing to assess whether Wood’s principles and methods were reliable? 3. Whether the First Circuit misconstrued the intent of Congress and misapplied this Court’s holdings and was in conflict with the rulings of other circuits in determining that acting as an accessory after the fact to murder is an “act involving murder” for RICO Conspiracy purposes, given the distinctive mens rea and actus reus features of the inchoate offense of acting as an accessory after the fact? il