Seems like he should have been tried and convicted of one of these "Predicate" crimes separately first, before this case was ever brought to trial. This creates a loophole around due process. The jury gets to convict him on one of these predicate crimes with no chance to defend himself or bring evidence to prove his innocence of the predicate crime. Innocent until proven guilty is being tossed to the wind in this case. The idea that everyone should agree whether he is guilty of some Predicate crime without a full blown trial around that crime is just so wrong. They couldn't prove guilt on these crimes before the statutes of limitations ran out is the reason he was not not prosecuted on them, and now a jury with no trial can just declare him guilty of one of these crimes?

Seems like he should have been tried and convicted of one of these "Predicate" crimes separately first, before this case was ever brought to trial. This creates a loophole around due process. The jury gets to convict him on one of these predicate crimes with no chance to defend himself or bring evidence to prove his innocence of the predicate crime. Innocent until proven guilty is being tossed to the wind in this case. The idea that everyone should agree whether he is guilty of some Predicate crime without a full blown trial around that crime is just so wrong. They couldn't prove guilt on these crimes before the statutes of limitations ran out is the reason he was not not prosecuted on them, and now a jury with no trial can just declare him guilty?

what am I missing here?.

Seems like he should have been tried and convicted of one of these "Predicate" crimes separately first, before this case was ever brought to trial. This creates a loophole around due process. The jury gets to convict him on one of these predicate crimes with no chance to defend himself or bring evidence to prove his innocence of the predicate crime. Innocent until proven guilty is being tossed to the wind in this case.