Complicity & Conspiracy Cases Flashcards
Guy agrees to sell pot to two guys. Seller and two others, including Roz get in car to make exchange. Instead of paying one of the buyers punches the seller and flees —> one accomplice shoots (don’t know who —> car chase —> police pulls seller’s car over
Can Raymond be convicted of using a gun in connection with a drug trafficking crime? Or aiding and abetting
No. Need to prove act and intent for a two-barreled crime. Rosemond didn’t know of the gun’s presence.
- affirmative act: need an act that goes toward offense, just one
- mens rea: intent of entire offense with full knowledge of circumstance (advance knowledge)
Dissent: risk of opting out when when accomplice acquires knowledge has nothing to do with mens rea for complicity
Rosemond v. US (2014)
Police saw D and son arrived to Denny’s (was cooperating with police and told them he was selling me to D that day). Camera saw D come back with his brother brother open toolbox and entered Denny’s home. Dany put 4 ounces of meth in microwave and got back $8000. And stopped by law-enforcement D showed them his security badge admitted to having gun. Officer sees the gun and found another and the money.
Can D be charged with possession and distribution of 50g of meth and possession of firearm in furtherance of drug trafficking crime?
Prob.
(1) knowing or intentional possession with intent to distribute
- first look at direct conduct (goes to toolbox, puts $ in microwave)
(2) possession/use of a firearm in furtherance of drug trafficking offense
- can use complicity to say, they’re brothers he prob knows of gun
- based on Rosemond (main federal standard), intent as actual crime
United States v. Cejas
D hires two men track down his former girlfriend. The men go to the ex-boyfriend’s house to ask about the girlfriend’s whereabouts they shoot and kill the ex ex-boyfriend.
D guilty of intentional murder?
If the two men tell him they’re gonna “thump” the current bf to get the info and D says he wants it at any cost. Men carrying guns
Prob not under Rosemond.
Maybe under Natural & Probable consequences
- requires showing that 2 men intentionally murderer bf
People v. Luparello
Two guys approached D in the mall. He told his two female friends to run. Two guys continued towards D and all three men began firing their high-powered guns. Public school principal was fatal wounded. Ballistic tests were inconclusive determining, which D fired the bullet.
Can be liable for each other murdering?
Probably. Affirmative act of each in furtherance of crime “intentionally aiding” D who fired the fatal shot
- complicity allows for reckless result crimes!!!!!
People v. Russel, Bella & Burroughs
Brothers ran a boot legging business, legally selling alcohol. D was convicted incarcerated for legal alcohol sales. Brother continued bootlegging. Brother legally failed to report income as money for the alcohol sales and he’s convicted of tax evasion and conspiracy to commit tax evasion. D is also convicted of tax evasion and conspiracy to commit tax evasion, even though he was in prison and not involved.
Can he be guilty?
Yes, but limited in the crimes that they have to be
(1) in furtherance of the conspiracy (to help advance), and l
(2) within reasonably foreseeable scope
Broad scope to sweep in a lot
Pinkerton v. United States (1946)
D gonna purchase 1 kg of cocaine from Vienna?. Villa’s employee started cooperating with the police. Villa was going to make two sales want to D and other arranged by the employee cooperating. Dear, you arrested before sale. Found a package at Venus’s motel of over 1 kg of baking soda and cocaine Villa plan to burn D for delivering a smaller quantity.
Can D be charged with conspiracy to possess over 650 grams cocaine?
No, not enough evidence of agreement (aka not 650 grams)—should could’ve always wanted to defraud him.
People v. Barajas (1993)
Dee drove two guys to Becken student to come close to the car. The student didn’t see the two guys got out of the car beat and choke. The student took his wallet. He sat at the wheel engine running and lights on car doors open then drove the two guys from the scene.
Guilty of conspiracy?
Look at whether there was intent, concerted action
Pennsylvania v. Charles Azim
Revisiting undercover officer and informant in bat to buy heroin, dealer cannot locate any, takes and returns $$
Agreement?
Probably yes, but with undercover cops need to distinguish between
- unilateral conspiracy (you think you had agreement; subjective intent)
- vs. bilateral agreement (both parties)
Conceptual debate: hard to evaluate, depends on several factors
- unilateral runs risk or merging solicitation and conspiracy
- courts generally assume the crimes should be distinct
