judge did not instruct the jury that it had to agree unanimously on which crimes served as the predicate offenses for the CCE charge. In 1999, the Supreme Court held that the CCE statute “requires jury unanimity in respect to each individual ‘violation.’ ” Richardson v. United States, 526 U.S. 813, 824, 119 S.Ct. 1707, 143 L.Ed.2d 985 (1999). The issue was raised on direct appeal, and the Seventh Circuit held that, to the extent that the failure to instruct the jury that it had to unanimously agree on which specific acts were the predicates for the CCE was error, the error was harmless because the jury found the defendants guilty on more than three separately charged predicate offenses. Jackson, 207 F.3d at 919; see also Lanier v. United States, 220 F.3d 833, 839-40 (7th Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>). Ordinarily, “in the absence of changed
holding that failure to give a properly requested chicone instruction cannot be harmless error holding that failure to give proper instruction regarding disputed element of crime charged was fundamental error requiring reversal and stating that fundamental error is not subject to harmless error review holding that where jury had opportunity to convict defendant of manslaughter but convicted of greater offense of second degree murder refusing to give instruction on negligent homicide was if error harmless holding that it was not error for the court to give a substantive new instruction to the jury after deliberations began where the instruction was given in court with the defendant and his counsel present holding that failure to give richardson instruction was harmless error where jury separately and unanimously convicted defendant of crimes that served as cce predicates