Ross was convicted on the generic conspiracy (which does not depend on violent acts) and then sentenced on preponderance of the evidence of the individual possi

Ross was convicted on the generic conspiracy (which does not depend on violent acts) and then sentenced on preponderance of the evidence of the individual possible overt act that one of the conspiracy acts was murder for hire. Not sentenced based on beyond reasonable doubt he did the murder for hire. The fact is the way "prosecution actually works" is you accuse someone of a generic conspiracy, show some element of the conspiracy was beyond a reasonable doubt true (like drug distribution), and then go to sentencing considering any element by preponderance of the evidence. It's a chilling short-circuiting of justice. Ross wasn't convicted of violent acts beyond a reasonable doubt, he was convicted of a continuing criminal enterprise where a judge thought it was more likely than not involved murder-for-hire.