The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld the conviction of Allen Gessen for murder-for-hire, a decision that has significant implications for similar cases. Gessen was found guilty of attempting to pay $50,000 to an undercover FBI agent to arrange the killing of Priscilla Chigariro, the mother of his children. This ruling highlights the court's interpretation of the law regarding solicitation of murder and the evidentiary standards required for such convictions.
This case began during a contentious custody battle between Gessen and Chigariro. Gessen, who was frustrated with the legal proceedings and previous kidnapping charges, sought to remove Chigariro from the United States. Initially, he contemplated bribing an immigration official but later escalated his plan to murder her as a more permanent solution. Unbeknownst to Gessen, the broker he contacted was actually an undercover FBI agent, David Rizzo.
The court's decision is significant because it not only affirms Gessen's conviction but also clarifies legal standards related to murder-for-hire schemes. The court ruled that Gessen's understanding of the law was incorrect and that the prosecution did not need to prove a formal agreement with a hitman for a conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 1958.
Background
Allen Gessen, a naturalized U.S. citizen originally from Russia, had a tumultuous relationship with Priscilla Chigariro. The couple had two children but faced ongoing custody disputes after their separation. Gessen's frustrations peaked when he was charged with kidnapping for attempting to take their son out of the country without permission. This led him to devise a plan to eliminate Chigariro, believing it would resolve his custody issues.
In 2022, Gessen contacted Oleksii Kiselev, who he thought was a lobbyist, to help him with his plans. Kiselev, under investigation for money laundering, introduced Gessen to FBI agent David Rizzo, posing as a member of an organized crime syndicate. Gessen met with Rizzo multiple times, discussing his desire to have Chigariro deported or killed, ultimately agreeing to pay for the latter.
The Ruling
The Ninth Circuit panel, consisting of Judges Richard A. Paez, Richard C. Tallman, and Mark J. Bennett, affirmed Gessen's conviction. The court stated, "Proof of a quid pro quo is not necessary to support a § 1958 conviction." This was a critical point in rejecting Gessen's argument that he needed to have a direct agreement with a hitman for the crime to be valid.
The judges also addressed Gessen's claims about the sufficiency of the evidence, stating that a rational jury could conclude he intended to kill Chigariro. They noted that Gessen's own words, recorded during meetings with Rizzo, indicated his intent to proceed with the murder plan, despite his later claims of only wanting her deported. The court concluded that the evidence presented at trial was sufficient for a reasonable jury to find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Impact
This ruling has broader implications for how courts interpret murder-for-hire statutes. It clarifies that the intent to commit murder does not require a formal agreement with a hitman, which could affect future cases involving similar charges. The decision reinforces the idea that the prosecution must only demonstrate the defendant's intent and actions toward committing the crime, rather than the existence of a traditional contract with a hired killer.
Furthermore, the court's affirmation of the venue in the Northern District of California indicates that murder-for-hire can be prosecuted in multiple jurisdictions, depending on where the crime's essential elements occurred. This aspect of the ruling could influence how future cases are handled regarding jurisdictional issues.
What's Next
Gessen has the option to appeal the Ninth Circuit's decision to the U.S. Supreme Court, although it is unclear whether he will pursue this route. There are no related cases pending that directly connect to this ruling, but the implications of the decision may resonate in other murder-for-hire cases across the country.