Background
During a custody dispute with Priscilla Chigariro, the mother of his children, Allen Gessen sought to have her deported. An undercover FBI agent, posing as a broker connected to organized crime, told Gessen there was a cheaper and more permanent alternative. Gessen agreed to pay $50,000 for Chigariro’s murder, provided a gold coin and about $23,000 as a down payment, and sent information about Chigariro’s location, routines, and associates.
A Northern District of California jury convicted Gessen of murder-for-hire under 18 U.S.C. § 1958. He challenged the denial of his proposed jury instructions, the sufficiency of the evidence, and venue in the Northern District of California.
The Court’s Holding
The Ninth Circuit affirmed. Section 1958 does not require an actual agreement with a real hitman or proof that the person receiving the promised payment personally intended to commit the murder. The statute requires the defendant’s use of interstate commerce with intent that a murder be committed for pecuniary value; Gessen’s proposed quid-pro-quo instruction improperly added an element not found in the statute.
The evidence permitted a rational jury to find that Gessen intended Chigariro to be killed, rather than deported, and intended to pay $50,000 for that result. The court also held that murder-for-hire may be charged as a continuing offense. Because Gessen’s Signal communications and wire transfers to a San Francisco account furthered the charged plot, venue was proper in the Northern District of California.
Key Takeaways
- A substantive § 1958 conviction does not require an actual murder-for-hire agreement with a willing or real killer.
- Recorded discussions, payment, target information, and efforts to create an alibi supported the finding of intent to murder.
- A charged murder-for-hire plot may be a continuing offense, allowing venue where later interstate-commerce acts furthered it.
Why It Matters
The decision confirms that undercover operations do not defeat a substantive federal murder-for-hire charge merely because the purported intermediary never intended to arrange a killing. It also recognizes that a single charged plot can continue through multiple interstate communications and payments, expanding the districts in which venue may lie when those acts further the scheme.