⚖ Oral Arguments, with Context

The Ninth Circuit hears Charles Heard’s challenge to federal convictions arising from two gang-related killings in San Francisco. Two men were shot dead in 2008. Prosecutors linked the killings to C D P, a street gang. A federal jury convicted Heard in 2018, and his convictions survived direct appeal. He now seeks post-conviction relief, challenging the instructions that allowed the jury to hold him responsible for another person’s acts. The murder charges came under the federal law against violent crimes in aid of racketeering, often called Vicar. That law requires a particular connection to a criminal enterprise: a financial reward from the enterprise, or a purpose of joining it, maintaining a position, or moving up within it. Simply saying a crime benefited a gang is not the same as proving that required purpose. Another key term is Pinkerton liability. A conspirator can sometimes be held responsible for another conspirator’s crime if it was within the conspiracy’s scope, furthered it, and was reasonably foreseeable. That is different from aiding and abetting, which involves intentionally helping a crime. Mere gang membership is not enough, and physical presence is not always necessary. California later narrowed murder liability based only on participation in a crime. Because these federal murder charges draw on California law, the judges will consider whether those changes affect Heard’s convictions. You will hear mens rea: the mental state required for a crime. That issue is distinct from the enterprise-related purpose required by Vicar. Heard’s lawyer will contend that the instructions let the jury convict without finding the necessary mental state or enterprise-related purpose. The government will defend the use of federal conspiracy law and contend that any mistake made no difference because the evidence showed intentional participation. The panel will consider both the proper instructions and whether an error could have affected the result.

United States v. Charles Heard (No. 24-7665) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, argued October 22, 2026.