argument that “the evidence was legally insufficient to support the RICO verdicts because no rational juror could have concluded that the Colombo Family enterprise continued to exist after July 1991, when the Orena and Pérsico factions commenced their conflict.” Id. at 710. The court held that “[t]he existence of an internal dispute does not signal the end of an enterprise, particularly if the objective of, and reason for, the dispute is control of the enterprise.” Id. (concluding that the evidence did show the existence of an ongoing enterprise, in part because “[a] surveillance recording indicated that Colombo Family members expected relationships to return to normal after the war was over”) (citation omitted). See also United States v. Brady, 26 F.3d 282, 284-85, 288 (2d Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Coonan, 938 F.2d 1553,
recognizing that production of a written insurance policy was unnecessary to prove the existence of the policy because the proof required was proof of the fact of insurance and not of the contents of a writing holding that the trial court reversibly erred when it altered an essential element of the crime charged and broadened the language of the indictment by instructing the jury on the general definition of enterprise for rico conspiracy holding the state must prove that at the time of the homicide the defendant was engaged in the commission of the felony holding in a case like orena where the indictment alleged a dispute between factions for control of the enterprise that evidence admitted at trial was relevant to prove the existence of a war that in turn was essential to prove the existence of the murder conspiracy that was part of the same internal struggle for control of the family holding in the context of the criminal false claims act that to prove falsity the government only had to prove that the statement was known to be untrue at the time the defendant made it