This is an extract of our Conspiracy document, which we sell as part of our Criminal Outlines collection written by the top tier of U.C. Berkeley School Of Law (Boalt Hall) students.
The following is a more accessble plain text extract of the PDF sample above, taken from our Criminal Outlines. Due to the challenges of extracting text from PDFs, it will have odd formatting:
CONSPIRACY 1) agreement with somebody else to commit a crime 2) Policy a) Crime more likely to succeed with more people, resources b) Culture of crime: once you start getting in with other people, it's harder to extract yourself from that activity in general. Abandonment difficult. c) Group has accountability: when you agree to it you're more likely to go through with it d) Agreements are inherently dangerous e) Harder to control consequences when there is a group committing the crime 3) How long a conspiracy lasts a) Why?
i) SoL ii) Evidence b) Basic rule: until objectives have been achieved i) Post-crime distribution of proceeds is part of ongoing conspiracy (1)United States v. Franklin (2005) - pg 669: splitting up cash and giving advice not to get caught was considered during the course and in furtherance of the conspiracy ii) Attempts to cover-up: not part of conspiracy iii) Point at which objective ecomes impossible: doesn't stop the conspiracy for those still going along because they still have MR (1)Just like attempt, where we don't really care that ultimate objective is impossible iv) Abandonment?
(1)Strict: must thwart success of conspiracy (minority) (a) Ticking time bomb approach (b)Helps government get info from coconspirators in prison (c) But makes people less likely to abandon (2)Majority: must actively tell coconspirators you're out (3)MPC 5.03(7): lying dormant - if everybody agrees but no one does any overt act = passively abandoned (4)Abandonment gets you out of trouble for future crimes that result from the agreement, but not from crimes that occur between agreement and your abandonment (a) Does not get you off the hook for original agreement (i) Only renunciation does: repudiate criminal purpose +
substantial effort to prevent crime from happening (some states) + MPC requires success in preventing crime
1. MPC SS 5.03 (6) Renunciation of Criminal Purpose. It is an affirmative defense that the actor, after conspiring to commit a crime, thwarted the success of the conspiracy, under circumstances manifesting a complete and voluntary renunciation of his criminal purpose
4) Sentencing a) CL: conspiracy punished separately from planned crime b) Federal system i) 5 extra years, regardless of the crime c) MPC i) If you conspire to commit 2 offenses, and you're only convicted of 1, you can still be convicted of conspiracy to commit other one ii) But no double counting (1)Could backfire: decreasing jury exposure to conspiracy evidence
& avoiding double counting may make legislature jack up mandatory minimums for minor crimes iii) Policy (1) Krulewitch v. United states (1949) - pg 664 [Justice Jackson]
(a) Unfairness to D: allows statements otherwise considered hearsay (someone else's statemet that is not brought in to court as witness) on the thought that statements of your agent are statements rom you (b)Bootstrapping - before these things come in, you have to show D is part of conspiracy.But you can look at statement itself as evidence that D is part of conspiracy (c) Problem of joinder: all minors and leaders are in same room; tainted; looks more guilty (d)Statute of limitations - must wait until conspiracy is finished before SoL starts running (i) New rule: doing things to keep from getting caught is not furtherance of the conspiracy (e) Venue: usually D tried under jury of peers, but here you can be tried wherever ay one of the overt acts took place (f) Breadth and harshness: (no longer fed law) but in some states (CA) conspiracy to commit some misdemeanors is considered a felony (tomato throwing at public official) (g)Sometimes object of conspiracy is not really a criminal offense, yet conspiracy to commit is turned into criminal offense (h)Vagueness of definition of agreement (i) Brings in people on the fringe of the system iv) Renunciation usually does get you out of liability for original agreement 5) Pinkerton rule: a co-conspirator is liable for all the substantive offenses committed by other co conspirators in furtherance of the conspiracy (ie. Reasonably forseeable). PERIOD. a) CA FOLLOWS THE PINKERTON DOCTRINE b) Nevada: can't use Pinkerton for specific intent offenses like burglary and kidgnapping c) Who follows the rule? Feds & majority of states
Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our Criminal Outlines.