- 1. Agreement
- 2. Between at least 2 people (MPC: "agree" permits conviction even if both sides don't agree, like an undercover police officer)
- 3. With purpose to enter into the agreement
- 4. Overt act in furtherance of that agreement
- WELL BEFORE preparation, only very MINOR act required
- 5. Purpose to promote unlawful act of conspiracy
- SOME: Knowledge that the act is unlawful
- Meeting of the minds that can be proven at least circumstantially--not the contractual level of agreement necessary.
- Limited evidence required, limited hearsay exception, get punishment of underlying crime (in some states at least).
- Where underlying offense REQUIRES conspiracy (bribery, for example), cannot also charge conspiracy.
- Prostitutes used answering service
- Did he know what he was aiding? Yes. "Intentional" aiding (purposeful/knowing) in traditional terms.
- Depends on state: sometimes need "purposeful"
Should KNOWING be enough for conspiracy, or should we require PURPOSEFUL? (I.e., selling gun knowing it is intended to be used to kill someone.)
Yates v. United States
- Communists who allegedly plan to overthrow gov’t
- Public meetings enough for overt act req’ment? YES.
- Obviously can be a very political crime...
United States v. Bruno
- Tried to say not one conspiracy, but rather 3 (drug smugglers, middlemen, two groups of retailers).
- Court says knew there would be further sales, community interest in what happened and all knew what needed to happen to succeed in larger enterprise.
- Success of one part dependent on success of whole.
- Could conceivably extend this to buyers of drugs, too, although that hasn’t typically been done.
Kotteakos v. United States
- Matters whether all separate loans could be considered one wheel conspiracy
- Didn’t withdraw from conspiracy
- I.e., didn’t tell everyone in the conspiracy!
People v. Sisselman
- Argues that since Patterson an undercover cop, Sisselman couldn’t be the "sole and motivating" factor in preventing the crime.