Hive Law and Order

	Main Index Search Register Login Who's Online FAQ Links
	Main Index Search Register Login Who's Online FAQ Links

	1 Online, 0 Active		You are not logged in

This is a historical archiveThe forum is read-only. Private information has been removed. It is not possible to login.

	Law and Order

All 13 posts Subject: Conspiracy Law (USA) - A Primer Please login to post Down

methadist
(prison bitch)
09-26-04 18:23
No 533266
User Picture       Conspiracy Law (USA) - A Primer

"Oh conspiracy!
Shams’t thou to show thy dangerous brow…"
- Shakespeare, Julius Caesar

Conspiracy is basically two or more persons who agree to break the law. "Big deal" you think. Why is this law different from all others? The answer is simple - Conspiracy is a loophole that works in favor of the govt! If they can’t bust you with breaking "regular" laws, they’ll get you with Conspiracy because it doesn’t require as much evidence. Unlike most laws, Conspiracy has two main properties that work against the defendant:

- Hearsay is admissable.
- Circumstantial evidence is sufficient to prove guilt.

Some basics:

You can be convicted of Conspiracy for simply planning a crime - regardless of whether or not you act on it. (U.S. vs Rabinowich, 238, 78, 86, 1915). Example: Gary Fannon, a nineteen year old from Michigan, set up a large cocaine deal with an undercover narcotics officer for a large amount of cocaine. At the last minute, he got cold feet and reneged. But because of the amount, he received a life sentence.*

If you join an existing conspiracy, you can be convicted of any crime committed by the group - even ones that occurred before you joined! (U.S. vs. Taylor, 656 2d 1326, 1337 - 9th Circuit, 1981).

Claiming ignorance or consciously avoiding learning of an illicit activity can still land you with a Conspiracy conviction. The appeals courts have termed this "willful blindness". Example: Andra Cole drove an acquaintance , a meth cook, to a grocery store where he purchased ephedrine products. Although Ms. Cole waited in the car and could not see the contents of the grocery bags, she was still convicted and sentenced to ten years.

The following is not Conspiracy:

- A buy-sell transaction.
- Aiding & abetting.

Like a lot of American law, this particular one was grand-fathered in from the British legal system. In the sixteenth century, English magistrates became frustrated with trying to break up roving gangs of highwaymen who robbed travelers in the English countryside. Even if they captured the ringleaders, other associates and junior member of the gang would pop up and take their place. Conspiracy law nixes out the concept of "accomplices " by making everyone culpable for any act committed by the group.. Conspiracy law in the U.S. was used against large organized crime entities but within the last twenty years it has been a means for the Attorney General’s office to carve notches by busting any two or more people who are in the manufacture or distribution of drugs - no matter how small.

"The Speed Zone"
http://speed-zone.tripod.com/M4/Intro.html

Love_N_it
09-26-04 22:02
      There is a lot of talk these days about ...
(Rated as: off-topic)

Jade
(soccer mom)
09-26-04 22:15
No 533300
User Picture       love n it....

At least when I copy and paste, I give credit to the author for it. I guess you just forgot to do it so I'll help you out. http://www.us4clark.com/patriotism.html

There's a terrorist behind every Bush.

geezmeister
(Of Counsel)
09-27-04 04:25
No 533345
      proof of conspiracy

Proof of conspiracy must show an agreement between two or more persons to violate some law and some act in furtherance of that conspiracy. The hearsay statements of co-conspirators area admissible if there is legally sufficient evidence to make out a prima facie conspiracy. Circumstantial evidence can be used to prove the existence of almost any element of a crime; cirtcumstantial evidence is no less valid or probative than direct evidence in the eyes of the law. The question is whether it proves what it is offered as proving.

mostly harmless

Artex
(Stranger)
09-27-04 15:48
No 533395
      Geezmeister's right

Wow, you're being such a panic monkey.

You have to have an overt act to corroborate any testimony that indicates your guilt through hearsay.

When you say 'hearsay is admissible', you're grossly overstating the situation. Only certain exceptions to the rule are admissible. Conspiracy crimes do not allow for any special exceptions beyond those admissible in any trial.

geezmeister
(Of Counsel)
09-27-04 22:18
No 533451
      co-conspirators statements..

Conspiracy crimes do not allow for any special exceptions beyond those admissible in any trial

Testimony regarding the content of a statement of a codefendant which implicates other defendants in the crime charged is not admissible evidence on the question of guilt of the codefendants except in conspiracy cases. That is the special exception to the hearsay rule in conspiracy cases. Sneak that evidence in without a conspriacy and you will be reversed on appeal.

mostly harmless

Artex
(Stranger)
09-28-04 14:21
No 533556
      I'm not sure that's correct. Are you sure?

Simply calling the Co-Defendant and corroborating his confession with any details that indicate the crime has occurred in the manner in which it was described by the co-defendant is permitted in any trial.

Now, having a 3 party repeat the co-defendant's statement in a trial against the defendant without corroboration is not permitted in any trial.

Nor should it be needed if you properly corroborated the statement in the first place.

geezmeister
(Of Counsel)
09-28-04 18:26
No 533597
      confrontation clause

You assume you may call a codefendant to the stand and that he is, for that reason, available as a witness. You cannot compel any defendant to take the stand, nor can a codefendant compel any other codefendant to testify. The defendant's statement as to himself is not hearsay and its introduction does not violate the confrontation clause (statement of a party). The defendant's statement which implicates a codefendant in the crime violates that codefendant's rights under the confrontation clause, as he cannot crossexamine the person who made the statement, i.e., his codefendant, who has a Fifth Amendment privilege against self incrimination and is therefore unavailable as a witness.

Why this does not apply in conspiracy cases after evidence sufficient to establish the conspiracy has been introduced is that in a conspiracy each codefendant is the agent of the other conspirators and each acts for all. Therefore the statement is one of the party's agent and the statement of the agent of the party is admissible as a declaration against interest. Thus the requirment that evidence establishing the existence of a conspiracy be introduced before hearsay statements of conspirators be admitted in evidence (subject, of course, to the authorization from the court to prove up certain parts of the conspiracy in later testimony.)

A defendant who takes the stand to testify is subject to crossexamination by his codefendants. He may be questioned as to any extrajudicial statement he made. He may also be crossexamined about such statements. This declarant is available as a witness. The confrontation clause is not applicable.

The hearsay exception for statements made by a conspirator in furtherance of the conspiracy would not be necessary if codefendants statements were admissible anyway. Think about it.

mostly harmless

Artex
(Stranger)
09-28-04 18:33
No 533599
      But still

None of it is admissible without an in camera review of the statement prior to the jury hearing it. So it's not like you get to convict a person based solely on the swearing words of someone who heard someone else say the defendant was involved. The poster above who aluded to 'hearsay' being admissible implied knowingly or unintentionally that out of court statements are allowed 'willy nilly' to convict on a conspiracy charge. The improper inference drawn from such logic is that a conspiracy charge is easy to slap and stick.

In point of fact, conspiracy is the hardest crime to prove, second only to Misdemeanor DWI breath test refusals.

methadist
(prison bitch)
10-01-04 13:33
No 534029
User Picture       Yup

RE: Wow, you're being such a panic monkey.

I had an excellent attorney with 20 years of federal expereince. He advised me to plea out on a Conspiracy to Manufacture charge when the only evidence the govt had were statements from 2 co-sdefendants plus video footage from a local grocery store chain of SWIM purchasing cold tablets.

In fact, the prison I was at was full of people with Conspiracy cases with far less evidence against them than me tongue

"The Speed Zone"
http://speed-zone.tripod.com/M4/Intro.html

geezmeister
(Of Counsel)
10-01-04 14:23
No 534038
      hardest crimes to prove?

Hardest crimes to prove? Conspiracy? Maybe if none of the conspirators say anything. Otherwise, they are usually easier than any other crime, because you only have to establish intent and an act in furtherance. As to DWI's with a refused breath test... give me a break:

Q Officer, describe the defendant at the time of his arrest
A: He had an odor of alcohol beverage about his person, bloodshot eyes, slurred speech and a staggered gait. He was not response at first to my questioning, and could not walk a straight line. I performed a nystgmus test on him and I concluded after observing the inability to control eye twitches that he was intoxicated.

Tough. Very tough.

mostly harmless

wolff_kishner
(Newbee)
10-04-04 17:31
No 534401
      Re: Proof of conspiracy must show an agreement

Proof of conspiracy must show an agreement between two or more persons to violate some law and some act in furtherance of that conspiracy.

The Supreme Court has ruled that a federal drug conspiracy does NOT have to involve an act in furtherance of the conspiracy to be in violation of the law. Just an agreement to break the Federal drug laws is enough.

geezmeister
(Of Counsel)
10-05-04 16:03
No 534555
      no overt act in drug cases

wolff_kishner's observation is partly correct; the occurrence of an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy is not an element of the offense of conspiring to violate the U.S. Drug Abuse and Prevention Act. Under 21 USC § 846, no specific overt act in furtherance of a drug conspiracy is required for conviction. The Supreme Court did not create this anomaly to conspiracy law; Congress did. The Supreme Court has not expressly ruled on the exact question and there is disparity among the circuit courts of appeal as to the elements required. Some require proof of participation in the conspiracy, some only require proof that there is a conspiracy to violate the drug act, proof that the defendant voluntarily entered the conspiracy, and interdependence between the coconspirators.

The elements do not require that any drugs ever be possessed or distributed by the conspiracy, and the offense can be proved without evidence of any overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy. In practical application, most conspiracies are detected by the observation of the overt act, rather than the discovery of the conspiracy itself. The element of participation or as stated in some circuits interdependence is usually established by overt acts, but may be established by any form of evidence.

mostly harmless

	https://the-hive.archive.erowid.org	the-hive@erowid.org



Powdered by Caffeine^® V. 3.06.5 test version, © 2018, Piggy's Worst Nightmare Co. International
Links Erowid Rhodium

	All 13 posts		Subject: Conspiracy Law (USA) - A Primer		Please login to post		Down


		methadist (prison bitch) 09-26-04 18:23 No 533266				Conspiracy Law (USA) - A Primer
						"Oh conspiracy! Shams’t thou to show thy dangerous brow…" - Shakespeare, Julius Caesar Conspiracy is basically two or more persons who agree to break the law. "Big deal" you think. Why is this law different from all others? The answer is simple - Conspiracy is a loophole that works in favor of the govt! If they can’t bust you with breaking "regular" laws, they’ll get you with Conspiracy because it doesn’t require as much evidence. Unlike most laws, Conspiracy has two main properties that work against the defendant: - Hearsay is admissable. - Circumstantial evidence is sufficient to prove guilt. Some basics: You can be convicted of Conspiracy for simply planning a crime - regardless of whether or not you act on it. (U.S. vs Rabinowich, 238, 78, 86, 1915). Example: Gary Fannon, a nineteen year old from Michigan, set up a large cocaine deal with an undercover narcotics officer for a large amount of cocaine. At the last minute, he got cold feet and reneged. But because of the amount, he received a life sentence.* If you join an existing conspiracy, you can be convicted of any crime committed by the group - even ones that occurred before you joined! (U.S. vs. Taylor, 656 2d 1326, 1337 - 9th Circuit, 1981). Claiming ignorance or consciously avoiding learning of an illicit activity can still land you with a Conspiracy conviction. The appeals courts have termed this "willful blindness". Example: Andra Cole drove an acquaintance , a meth cook, to a grocery store where he purchased ephedrine products. Although Ms. Cole waited in the car and could not see the contents of the grocery bags, she was still convicted and sentenced to ten years. The following is not Conspiracy: - A buy-sell transaction. - Aiding & abetting. Like a lot of American law, this particular one was grand-fathered in from the British legal system. In the sixteenth century, English magistrates became frustrated with trying to break up roving gangs of highwaymen who robbed travelers in the English countryside. Even if they captured the ringleaders, other associates and junior member of the gang would pop up and take their place. Conspiracy law nixes out the concept of "accomplices " by making everyone culpable for any act committed by the group.. Conspiracy law in the U.S. was used against large organized crime entities but within the last twenty years it has been a means for the Attorney General’s office to carve notches by busting any two or more people who are in the manufacture or distribution of drugs - no matter how small. "The Speed Zone" http://speed-zone.tripod.com/M4/Intro.html



		Love_N_it 09-26-04 22:02				There is a lot of talk these days about ... (Rated as: off-topic)



		Jade (soccer mom) 09-26-04 22:15 No 533300				love n it....
						At least when I copy and paste, I give credit to the author for it. I guess you just forgot to do it so I'll help you out. http://www.us4clark.com/patriotism.html There's a terrorist behind every Bush.



		geezmeister (Of Counsel) 09-27-04 04:25 No 533345				proof of conspiracy
						Proof of conspiracy must show an agreement between two or more persons to violate some law and some act in furtherance of that conspiracy. The hearsay statements of co-conspirators area admissible if there is legally sufficient evidence to make out a prima facie conspiracy. Circumstantial evidence can be used to prove the existence of almost any element of a crime; cirtcumstantial evidence is no less valid or probative than direct evidence in the eyes of the law. The question is whether it proves what it is offered as proving. mostly harmless



		Artex (Stranger) 09-27-04 15:48 No 533395				Geezmeister's right
						Wow, you're being such a panic monkey. You have to have an overt act to corroborate any testimony that indicates your guilt through hearsay. When you say 'hearsay is admissible', you're grossly overstating the situation. Only certain exceptions to the rule are admissible. Conspiracy crimes do not allow for any special exceptions beyond those admissible in any trial.



		geezmeister (Of Counsel) 09-27-04 22:18 No 533451				co-conspirators statements..
						Conspiracy crimes do not allow for any special exceptions beyond those admissible in any trial Testimony regarding the content of a statement of a codefendant which implicates other defendants in the crime charged is not admissible evidence on the question of guilt of the codefendants except in conspiracy cases. That is the special exception to the hearsay rule in conspiracy cases. Sneak that evidence in without a conspriacy and you will be reversed on appeal. mostly harmless



		Artex (Stranger) 09-28-04 14:21 No 533556				I'm not sure that's correct. Are you sure?
						Simply calling the Co-Defendant and corroborating his confession with any details that indicate the crime has occurred in the manner in which it was described by the co-defendant is permitted in any trial. Now, having a 3 party repeat the co-defendant's statement in a trial against the defendant without corroboration is not permitted in any trial. Nor should it be needed if you properly corroborated the statement in the first place.



		geezmeister (Of Counsel) 09-28-04 18:26 No 533597				confrontation clause
						You assume you may call a codefendant to the stand and that he is, for that reason, available as a witness. You cannot compel any defendant to take the stand, nor can a codefendant compel any other codefendant to testify. The defendant's statement as to himself is not hearsay and its introduction does not violate the confrontation clause (statement of a party). The defendant's statement which implicates a codefendant in the crime violates that codefendant's rights under the confrontation clause, as he cannot crossexamine the person who made the statement, i.e., his codefendant, who has a Fifth Amendment privilege against self incrimination and is therefore unavailable as a witness. Why this does not apply in conspiracy cases after evidence sufficient to establish the conspiracy has been introduced is that in a conspiracy each codefendant is the agent of the other conspirators and each acts for all. Therefore the statement is one of the party's agent and the statement of the agent of the party is admissible as a declaration against interest. Thus the requirment that evidence establishing the existence of a conspiracy be introduced before hearsay statements of conspirators be admitted in evidence (subject, of course, to the authorization from the court to prove up certain parts of the conspiracy in later testimony.) A defendant who takes the stand to testify is subject to crossexamination by his codefendants. He may be questioned as to any extrajudicial statement he made. He may also be crossexamined about such statements. This declarant is available as a witness. The confrontation clause is not applicable. The hearsay exception for statements made by a conspirator in furtherance of the conspiracy would not be necessary if codefendants statements were admissible anyway. Think about it. mostly harmless



		Artex (Stranger) 09-28-04 18:33 No 533599				But still
						None of it is admissible without an in camera review of the statement prior to the jury hearing it. So it's not like you get to convict a person based solely on the swearing words of someone who heard someone else say the defendant was involved. The poster above who aluded to 'hearsay' being admissible implied knowingly or unintentionally that out of court statements are allowed 'willy nilly' to convict on a conspiracy charge. The improper inference drawn from such logic is that a conspiracy charge is easy to slap and stick. In point of fact, conspiracy is the hardest crime to prove, second only to Misdemeanor DWI breath test refusals.



		methadist (prison bitch) 10-01-04 13:33 No 534029				Yup
						RE: Wow, you're being such a panic monkey. I had an excellent attorney with 20 years of federal expereince. He advised me to plea out on a Conspiracy to Manufacture charge when the only evidence the govt had were statements from 2 co-sdefendants plus video footage from a local grocery store chain of SWIM purchasing cold tablets. In fact, the prison I was at was full of people with Conspiracy cases with far less evidence against them than me "The Speed Zone" http://speed-zone.tripod.com/M4/Intro.html



		geezmeister (Of Counsel) 10-01-04 14:23 No 534038				hardest crimes to prove?
						Hardest crimes to prove? Conspiracy? Maybe if none of the conspirators say anything. Otherwise, they are usually easier than any other crime, because you only have to establish intent and an act in furtherance. As to DWI's with a refused breath test... give me a break: Q Officer, describe the defendant at the time of his arrest A: He had an odor of alcohol beverage about his person, bloodshot eyes, slurred speech and a staggered gait. He was not response at first to my questioning, and could not walk a straight line. I performed a nystgmus test on him and I concluded after observing the inability to control eye twitches that he was intoxicated. Tough. Very tough. mostly harmless



		wolff_kishner (Newbee) 10-04-04 17:31 No 534401				Re: Proof of conspiracy must show an agreement
						Proof of conspiracy must show an agreement between two or more persons to violate some law and some act in furtherance of that conspiracy. The Supreme Court has ruled that a federal drug conspiracy does NOT have to involve an act in furtherance of the conspiracy to be in violation of the law. Just an agreement to break the Federal drug laws is enough.



		geezmeister (Of Counsel) 10-05-04 16:03 No 534555				no overt act in drug cases
						wolff_kishner's observation is partly correct; the occurrence of an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy is not an element of the offense of conspiring to violate the U.S. Drug Abuse and Prevention Act. Under 21 USC § 846, no specific overt act in furtherance of a drug conspiracy is required for conviction. The Supreme Court did not create this anomaly to conspiracy law; Congress did. The Supreme Court has not expressly ruled on the exact question and there is disparity among the circuit courts of appeal as to the elements required. Some require proof of participation in the conspiracy, some only require proof that there is a conspiracy to violate the drug act, proof that the defendant voluntarily entered the conspiracy, and interdependence between the coconspirators. The elements do not require that any drugs ever be possessed or distributed by the conspiracy, and the offense can be proved without evidence of any overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy. In practical application, most conspiracies are detected by the observation of the overt act, rather than the discovery of the conspiracy itself. The element of participation or as stated in some circuits interdependence is usually established by overt acts, but may be established by any form of evidence. mostly harmless

All 13 posts	End of thread	Top