Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below 
C
Citruscide
Guest
Ok, alot of this came out of my notes... but I think some parts of the case briefs were taken from I want to say... Legallines... but I'm not sure...
I've heard alot of people ask me about being implicated as a conspirator... in the dealing of anabolic steroids... this is basically what I have on the subject... again, as with ALL my posts, don't take this and "run" with it... if you get busted, don't rely on this information solely... it doesn't give specific advice to the particular facts of your case. It is only the law... and application of the law to various supreme court cases, to help give you a better understanding of it.
CONSPIRACY
1. Definition: Conspiracy is an agreement between two or more persons to do an unlawful act or to do a lawful act in an unlawful manner. At common law, conspiracy was a misdemeanor, and if the substantive crime was actually committed, then the misdemeanor merged into the actual crime committed. Today, however, conspiracy is punishable as a separate and distinct crime. Therefore, the defendant may be prosecuted for both the conspiracy and the complete crime and the sentences added together on the conviction.
2. Particular Aspects of Conspiracy:
1) Introduction: It is difficult to understand the law of conspiracy unless one understands the law of evidence.
a) Hearsay rule: The hearsay rule requires that one testify only about those things that he has actually observed; that is, one cannot put into evidence the out-of-court statement of another to prove the truth of that statement.
b) Exceptions to hearsay rule: There are exceptions to the hearsay rule. One of these is the “admissions exception” – anything that the defendant himself has said out of court can be introduced in court to prove the truth of the fact asserted in the out-of-court statement. Also, admissions by the agent of a party will often be received against the agent of a party will often be received against the party. For example, if a truck driver hits A, then admits to A that he was going too fast, A may testify in court about the statement and such testimony will be used against the owner of the truck and the employer of the driver (i.e., the principal).
2) Admissions of one admissible against all – Krulewitch v. US
a) Facts: Krulewitch (D) and a woman defendant allegedly conspired to persuade another woman to travel interstate (from New York to Florida) for the purpose of prostitution, and then did transport her for that purpose. Such activity is illegal under the Mann Act. After D was arrested, the complaining witness (the prostitute) told the prosecution of an alleged conversation she had with the woman defendant. The conversation occurred after the witness had returned to New York and involved a suggestion not to implicate D. D was tried alone, and this conversation was admitted over objection. D was convicted. The court of appeals affirmed. D appeals.
b) Issue: May a conspirator’s statements against a co-conspirator be admitted into evidence if the statement were not made in furtherance of the crime charged?
c) Held: No. Judgement reversed.
1) The complaining witness’s testimony about the alleged conversation was hearsay, and thus not admissible unless covered by an exception to the hearsay rule.
2) An exception to the hearsay rule does apply to out-of-court statements made by one conspirator, but only if made in furtherance of the objectives of an ongoing conspiracy. The government asserts that the statement was made in furtherance of a subsidiary phase of the conspiracy; i.e., to avoid detection. But the conversation took place well after the criminal act was completed. It was too far removed from the conspiracy alleged to have been made in furtherance of that conspiracy. The exception to the hearsay rule should not be extended to such statements or the hearsay rule would effectively cease to exist in conspiracy cases.
d) Concurrence: When prosecutors resort to charging conspiracy instead of the underlying substantive offense, they threaten the fairness of the justice system. Conspiracy to commit a misdemeanor may be a felony, so the stakes are higher. Conspiracy itself is difficult to define. In proving a conspiracy, the prosecution may use the specific acts of the co-conspirators, regardless of the involvement of the defendant in those particular acts. The defendant may be tried whenever any conspirator did any of the acts, given the prosecution wide latitude. These dangers to defendants require that limits placed on conspiracy charges be carefully followed, and an expansion of the hearsay exception in conspiracy cases is clearly unwarranted.
Hypothetical:
• Suppose A recruits B to do a bank job saying, “Come on, do it with us. We’ve got C, a great safecracker.” The police want B to testify against C. Such testimony is admissible, since it was said by one of the members of the conspiracy during the course of and in furtherance of the conspiracy. Conspiracy is like the partnership idea – each member of the conspiracy is said to have authorized all of the other members to do all of the acts that they do.
• Suppose A came into the bar and said, “Boy, are we lucky. We’ve got C to be the safecracker.” This statement is not admissible (except against A), since it was not made in furtherance of the conspiracy.
Imputing the acts of one conspirator to the others.
• Introduction: The general rule is that each conspirator is held accountable for any and all crimes which result from the furtherance of the conspiracy. It is no defense to say that the crime committed was not part of the original plan (even if it was expressly agreed that the act should not be done) if ti can be said that the commission of such an act or crime was reasonably foreseeable. The courts are generally liberal in finding that acts were the natural and probable consequence of the conspiracy.
Application – Pinkerton v. United States
Facts: The Pinkertons (Ds), Daniel and Walter, were prosecuted for conspiracy to commit violations of the Internal Revenue Code and for substantive violations. Only Walter committed the actual violations, but both brothers were convicted of conspiracy and certain of the substantive violations. Daniel appeals.
Issue: May a conspirator be convicted of committing the offense intended by the conspiracy although he had no direct participation in the actual commission?
Held: Yes. Judgement affirmed.
(a). Once Daniel conspired with Walter, he became equally responsible with Walter for acts done in furtherance of the conspiracy. The conspiracy was continuous. There is no evidence that Daniel withdrew from the conspiracy before Walter acted. The criminal intent necessary was established by the formation of the conspiracy. Thus, Daniel was properly convicted of the substantive offenses.
Dissent: All the government proved was that Daniel had, in the past, conspired with Walter to commit violations similar to those committed in this case. There is not evidence that Daniel conspired to commit the particular acts that Walter committed here. Daniel was even in prison when Walter committed some of the acts.
Comment: In People v. McGee, the court expressly refused to follow the Pinkerton rule in state prosecutions, requiring participation in the substantive offense to support a conviction for the substantive offense.
Relation Back doctrine: If a new person joins a conspiracy and has an awareness as to its general purpose and the past acts that have been committed in its furtherance, the doctrine of “relation back” applies and such a person becomes responsible for all of the acts of the conspirators up to that time.
C-ditty
I've heard alot of people ask me about being implicated as a conspirator... in the dealing of anabolic steroids... this is basically what I have on the subject... again, as with ALL my posts, don't take this and "run" with it... if you get busted, don't rely on this information solely... it doesn't give specific advice to the particular facts of your case. It is only the law... and application of the law to various supreme court cases, to help give you a better understanding of it.
CONSPIRACY
1. Definition: Conspiracy is an agreement between two or more persons to do an unlawful act or to do a lawful act in an unlawful manner. At common law, conspiracy was a misdemeanor, and if the substantive crime was actually committed, then the misdemeanor merged into the actual crime committed. Today, however, conspiracy is punishable as a separate and distinct crime. Therefore, the defendant may be prosecuted for both the conspiracy and the complete crime and the sentences added together on the conviction.
2. Particular Aspects of Conspiracy:
1) Introduction: It is difficult to understand the law of conspiracy unless one understands the law of evidence.
a) Hearsay rule: The hearsay rule requires that one testify only about those things that he has actually observed; that is, one cannot put into evidence the out-of-court statement of another to prove the truth of that statement.
b) Exceptions to hearsay rule: There are exceptions to the hearsay rule. One of these is the “admissions exception” – anything that the defendant himself has said out of court can be introduced in court to prove the truth of the fact asserted in the out-of-court statement. Also, admissions by the agent of a party will often be received against the agent of a party will often be received against the party. For example, if a truck driver hits A, then admits to A that he was going too fast, A may testify in court about the statement and such testimony will be used against the owner of the truck and the employer of the driver (i.e., the principal).
2) Admissions of one admissible against all – Krulewitch v. US
a) Facts: Krulewitch (D) and a woman defendant allegedly conspired to persuade another woman to travel interstate (from New York to Florida) for the purpose of prostitution, and then did transport her for that purpose. Such activity is illegal under the Mann Act. After D was arrested, the complaining witness (the prostitute) told the prosecution of an alleged conversation she had with the woman defendant. The conversation occurred after the witness had returned to New York and involved a suggestion not to implicate D. D was tried alone, and this conversation was admitted over objection. D was convicted. The court of appeals affirmed. D appeals.
b) Issue: May a conspirator’s statements against a co-conspirator be admitted into evidence if the statement were not made in furtherance of the crime charged?
c) Held: No. Judgement reversed.
1) The complaining witness’s testimony about the alleged conversation was hearsay, and thus not admissible unless covered by an exception to the hearsay rule.
2) An exception to the hearsay rule does apply to out-of-court statements made by one conspirator, but only if made in furtherance of the objectives of an ongoing conspiracy. The government asserts that the statement was made in furtherance of a subsidiary phase of the conspiracy; i.e., to avoid detection. But the conversation took place well after the criminal act was completed. It was too far removed from the conspiracy alleged to have been made in furtherance of that conspiracy. The exception to the hearsay rule should not be extended to such statements or the hearsay rule would effectively cease to exist in conspiracy cases.
d) Concurrence: When prosecutors resort to charging conspiracy instead of the underlying substantive offense, they threaten the fairness of the justice system. Conspiracy to commit a misdemeanor may be a felony, so the stakes are higher. Conspiracy itself is difficult to define. In proving a conspiracy, the prosecution may use the specific acts of the co-conspirators, regardless of the involvement of the defendant in those particular acts. The defendant may be tried whenever any conspirator did any of the acts, given the prosecution wide latitude. These dangers to defendants require that limits placed on conspiracy charges be carefully followed, and an expansion of the hearsay exception in conspiracy cases is clearly unwarranted.
Hypothetical:
• Suppose A recruits B to do a bank job saying, “Come on, do it with us. We’ve got C, a great safecracker.” The police want B to testify against C. Such testimony is admissible, since it was said by one of the members of the conspiracy during the course of and in furtherance of the conspiracy. Conspiracy is like the partnership idea – each member of the conspiracy is said to have authorized all of the other members to do all of the acts that they do.
• Suppose A came into the bar and said, “Boy, are we lucky. We’ve got C to be the safecracker.” This statement is not admissible (except against A), since it was not made in furtherance of the conspiracy.
Imputing the acts of one conspirator to the others.
• Introduction: The general rule is that each conspirator is held accountable for any and all crimes which result from the furtherance of the conspiracy. It is no defense to say that the crime committed was not part of the original plan (even if it was expressly agreed that the act should not be done) if ti can be said that the commission of such an act or crime was reasonably foreseeable. The courts are generally liberal in finding that acts were the natural and probable consequence of the conspiracy.
Application – Pinkerton v. United States
Facts: The Pinkertons (Ds), Daniel and Walter, were prosecuted for conspiracy to commit violations of the Internal Revenue Code and for substantive violations. Only Walter committed the actual violations, but both brothers were convicted of conspiracy and certain of the substantive violations. Daniel appeals.
Issue: May a conspirator be convicted of committing the offense intended by the conspiracy although he had no direct participation in the actual commission?
Held: Yes. Judgement affirmed.
(a). Once Daniel conspired with Walter, he became equally responsible with Walter for acts done in furtherance of the conspiracy. The conspiracy was continuous. There is no evidence that Daniel withdrew from the conspiracy before Walter acted. The criminal intent necessary was established by the formation of the conspiracy. Thus, Daniel was properly convicted of the substantive offenses.
Dissent: All the government proved was that Daniel had, in the past, conspired with Walter to commit violations similar to those committed in this case. There is not evidence that Daniel conspired to commit the particular acts that Walter committed here. Daniel was even in prison when Walter committed some of the acts.
Comment: In People v. McGee, the court expressly refused to follow the Pinkerton rule in state prosecutions, requiring participation in the substantive offense to support a conviction for the substantive offense.
Relation Back doctrine: If a new person joins a conspiracy and has an awareness as to its general purpose and the past acts that have been committed in its furtherance, the doctrine of “relation back” applies and such a person becomes responsible for all of the acts of the conspirators up to that time.
C-ditty
