United States v. Jones

── United States v. Jones ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Date: April 21, 2026 Category: General 24-2225 United States v. Jones UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING TO A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL. At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 21st day of April, two thousand twenty-six. PRESENT: ROBERT D. SACK, RICHARD J. SULLIVAN, EUNICE C. LEE, Circuit Judges. _____________________________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellee, v. No. 24-2225 GENARO CASTRO, Defendant, WILLIAM JONES, Defendant-Appellant. _____________________________________ For Defendant-Appellant: BRENDAN WHITE, New York, NY. For Appellee: EMILY A. JOHNSON (Justin V. Rodriguez, Christy Slavik, James Ligtenberg, on the brief), for Jay Clayton, United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, New York, NY. Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Edgardo Ramos, Judge). UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the August 14, 2024 judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. William Jones appeals his conviction following a jury trial at which he was found guilty of (i) racketeering conspiracy in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d); (ii) murder in aid of racketeering in violation of § 1959(a)(1); and (iii) murder through use of a firearm in violation of § 924(j). On appeal, Jones contends that (i) the government did not present the jury with sufficient evidence to convict him on the racketeering and murder counts, and (ii) the district court improperly excluded impeachment evidence that would have undermined the credibility of 2 the government’s cooperating witness. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, procedural history, and issues on appeal, to which we refer only as necessary to explain our decision. I. Sufficient Evidence Supported the Jury Verdict. We review de novo a defendant’s challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence. United States v. Gershman, 31 F.4th 80, 95 (2d Cir. 2022). A defendant “faces an uphill battle . . . and bears a heavy burden . . . because a reviewing court must sustain the jury’s verdict if, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” United States v. Kelly, 128 F.4th 387, 408 (2d Cir. 2025) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted); see United States v. Cuti, 720 F.3d 453, 461–62 (2d Cir. 2013) (“To avoid usurping the role of the jury,” we “must also credit every inference that the jury might have drawn in favor of the government . . . , because the task of choosing among competing, permissible inferences is for the jury, not for the reviewing court.” (alterations adopted and citations an