Conspiracy

Question 1

Conspiracy (definition)

Answer 1

Agreement between 2 or more people (tacit agreement sufficient) + True Purpose

Question 2

A defendant in a case charging a conspiracy may be liable for each of the substantive counts charged in an indictment under three separate theories:

Answer 2

1. Actual commission of the crime;
2. Participation in the crime as an aider or abettor (accomplice liability)
3. Liability under a Pinkerton theory (conspiratorial agreement i.e. conspiracy)

These are SEPARATE crimes

Question 3

Pinkerton

Answer 3

Def. who is guilty of conspiring to commit one offense may be convicted of other offenses that his co-conspirators commit if those additional offenses further the conspiratorial objective and are reasonably foreseeable consequences of the conspiracy agreement

Goes beyond traditional limits of AL b/c defendant can be convicted of crimes he did not specifically aid/abet so long as those crimes were in furtherance of the conspiracy

Question 4

How is conspiracy diff from AL in terms of elements of the offense?

Answer 4

One can be guilty of aiding and abetting a crime w/o necessarily being guilty of conspiratorial agreement — I can applaud/encourage commission of a crime as it is happening w/o agreeing to do so before it is committed

I.e., there is no requirement that there be an agreement in order to convict one of aiding and abetting

And also “so long as the partnership in crime continues, the partners act for each other in carrying it forward, and an overt act of one partner may be the act of all without any new agreement specifically directed to that act.

So when conspiracy is formed, no agreement needed for each subsequent offense as long as it is in furtherance of the conspiracy

Question 5

Mens rea

Answer 5

The criminal intent to do an illegal act by one of the conspirators in furtherance of the unlawful project is established by the formation of the conspiracy (Pinkerton)

Question 6

Attributing crimes to co-conspirators

Answer 6

Similar to the rule of aiding and abetting, the overt acts of one partner in a conspiracy is attributable to all partners. Id. The court concluded that if an overt act, which is an essential ingredient to a conspiracy, can be supplied by one conspirator, then likewise the same or other acts in furtherance of the conspiracy should be attributable to the others for the purpose of holding them responsible for the substantive offense(s).

Question 7

When might a crime committed by a co-conspirator not be attributed to all of the other co-conspirators (Pinkerton)?

Answer 7

1. Substantive offense committed by one of the conspirators was not, in fact, done in furtherance of the conspiracy
2. Did not fall within the scope of the unlawful project, or
3. Ramifications of the plan which could not be reasonably foreseen as a necessary or natural consequence of the unlawful agreement

Question 8

Is Pinkerton narrower or broader in scope than AL?

Answer 8

Narrower.

• Aiding and abetting rests on a broader base than Pinkerton. It states a rule of criminal responsibility for criminal acts which one assists another in performing even if there was no prior agreement, making D a principal so long as he consciously shares in the commission of the crime. Therefore, AL is broader than Pinkerton.

Question 9

True or false: The fact that a particular case might conceivably be submitted to the jury on either theory is irrelevant. It is sufficient if the proof adduced and the basis on which it was submitted were sufficient to support the verdicts.

Answer 9

True