Conspiracy

The government charges (indicts) crimes as conspiracies because a conspiracy is is easier to “prove” because 1) they do not have to prove that the citizen committed a substantive crime, only conspired to do so, and 2) a conspiracy accusation normally results in all the people who are accused finger pointing against each other, and the less guilty or not guilty can be convicted based on the testimony of those who really committed a crime.

There are two types of conspiracies generally prosecuted in Federal Court, “371” conspiracies and “846” conspiracies. 371 conspiracies are general conspiracies to violate a Federal law, and a “benefit” of a 371 count is that the punishment is generally capped (maxed out) at five years, rather than having to face the full punishment range for the substantive crime. 846 conspiracies, however, are drug conspiracies and follow the same punishment scheme as the substantive drug charges. For example, health care fraud is generally a ten year maximum sentence, but since it is normally charged as conspiracy, persons charged with conspiring to commit health care fraud face a five year maximum on that charge. However, someone charged with one count of conspiracy to distribute cocaine and one count of actual delivery of cocaine faces the same punishment if convicted on either count, which is why Federal drug charges are almost always brought as a conspiracy. Conspiracy law from the Fifth Circuit pattern jury charges is outlined below. These pattern charges are strictly followed at Federal criminal trials.

Title 18, United States Code, Section 371, makes it a crime for anyone to conspire with someone else to commit an offense against the laws of the United States. A "conspiracy" is an agreement between two or more persons to join together to accomplish some unlawful purpose. It is a kind of "partnership in crime" in which each member becomes the agent of every other member. To find a defendant guilty of this crime, a jury must be convinced that the government has proved each of the following beyond a reasonable doubt: First: That the defendant and at least one other person made an agreement to commit the crime as charged in the indictment; Second: That the defendant knew the unlawful purpose of the agreement and joined in it willfully, that is, with the intent to further the unlawful purpose; and Third: That one of the conspirators during the existence of the conspiracy knowingly committed at least one of the overt acts described in the indictment, in order to accomplish some object or purpose of the conspiracy. One may become a member of a conspiracy without knowing all the details of the unlawful scheme or the identities of all the other alleged conspirators. If a defendant understands the unlawful nature of a plan or scheme and knowingly and intentionally joins in that plan or scheme on one occasion, that is sufficient to convict him for conspiracy even though the defendant had not participated before and even though the defendant played only a minor part. The government need not prove that the alleged conspirators entered into any formal agreement, nor that they directly stated between themselves all the details of the scheme. Similarly, the government need not prove that all of the details of the scheme alleged in the indictment were actually agreed upon or carried out. Nor must it prove that all of the persons alleged to have been members of the conspiracy were such, or that the alleged conspirators actually succeeded in accomplishing their unlawful objectives. Mere presence at the scene of an event, even with knowledge that a crime is being committed, or the mere fact that certain persons may have associated with each other, and may have assembled together and discussed common aims and interests, does not necessarily establish proof of the existence of a conspiracy. Also, a person who has no knowledge of a conspiracy, but who happens to act in a way which advances some purpose of a conspiracy, does not thereby become a conspirator.

Title 21, United States Code, Section 846, makes it a crime for anyone to conspire with someone else to commit a violation of certain controlled substances laws of the United States. A "conspiracy" is an agreement between two or more persons to join together to accomplish some unlawful purpose. It is a kind of "partnership in crime" in which each member becomes the agent of every other member. For a jury to find a defendant guilty of this crime, it must be convinced that the government has proved each of the following beyond a reasonable doubt: First: That two or more persons, directly or indirectly, reached an agreement to [object of the conspiracy]; Second: That the defendant knew of the unlawful purpose of the agreement; Third: That the defendant joined in the agreement willfully, that is, with the intent to further its unlawful purpose; and Fourth: That the overall scope of the conspiracy involved at least [amount] of [substance].

One may become a member of a conspiracy without knowing all the details of the unlawful scheme or the identities of all the other alleged conspirators. If a defendant understands the unlawful nature of a plan or scheme and knowingly and intentionally joins in that plan or scheme on one occasion, that is sufficient to convict him for conspiracy even though the defendant had not participated before and even though the defendant played only a minor part. The government need not prove that the alleged conspirators entered into any formal agreement, nor that they directly stated between themselves all the details of the scheme. Similarly, the government need not prove that all of the details of the scheme alleged in the indictment were actually agreed upon or carried out. Nor must it prove that all of the persons alleged to have been members of the conspiracy were such, or that the alleged conspirators actually succeeded in accomplishing their unlawful objectives.

Mere presence at the scene of an event, even with knowledge that a crime is being committed, or the mere fact that certain persons may have associated with each other and may have assembled together and discussed common aims and interests, does not necessarily establish proof of the existence of a conspiracy. Also, a person who has no knowledge of a conspiracy, but who happens to act in a way which advances some purpose of a conspiracy, does not thereby become a conspirator.