FORECITE National™
Instructions And Issues Omitted By The Pattern Instructions
Copyright & Publication Information

VOLUME 7 - CHAPTER 83
Go to Volume 7 Table of Contents - Go to Chapter 83 Table of Contents

83.2 Conspiracy: Miscellaneous Issues

    83.2.1 Coconspirator Issues
    83.2.2 Conspiracy: Proof By Circumstantial Evidence
    83.2.3 Criticism Of The Crime Of Conspiracy
    83.2.4 Conspiracy: Defense Theory That Statements As To The Existence Of Conspiracy ("Spilling The Beans") Do Not Further The Conspiracy
    83.2.5 Conspiracy And Substantive Offense Should Be Considered Separately
    83.2.6 Conspiracy: Variance
    83.2.7 Evidentiary Issues In Conspiracy Cases
    83.2.8 Conspiracy: Corporate Liability -- Requirement Of At Least Two Natural Persons
    83.2.9 Conspiracy: Deliberate Ignorance

FORECITE National™
Instructions And Issues Omitted By The Pattern Instructions
Copyright & Publication Information

VOLUME 7 - CHAPTER 83

FORECITE National™
Instructions And Issues Omitted By The Pattern Instructions
Copyright & Publication Information

VOLUME 7 - CHAPTER 83

PRACTICE NOTE: The agreement or unlawful design of conspiracy may be proved by circumstantial evidence without the necessity of showing that the conspirators met and actually agreed to commit the offense which was the object of the conspiracy. (People v. Zamora (CA 1976) 18 C3d 538, 559 [134 CR 784]; U.S. v. Fetlow (8th Cir.1994) 21 F3d 243, 247; U.S. v. Jankowski (8th Cir. 1983) 713 F2d 394, 397 [[t]he identity and exact participation of the other coconspirators in a conspiracy is not required].) Mere association does not prove criminal conspiracy (People v. Manson (CA 1976) 61 CA3d 102, 126 [132 CR 265]), but common gang membership may be part of the circumstantial evidence supporting the inference of a conspiracy . (People v. Frausto (CA 1982) 135 CA3d 129, 140-41 [185 CR 314].) The circumstances from which a conspiratorial agreement may be inferred include, "the conduct of defendants in mutually carrying out a common illegal purpose, the nature of the act done, the relationship of the parties [and] the interest of the alleged conspirators ...." (People v. Remiro (CA 1979) 89 CA3d 809, 843 [153 CR 89].)

See generally, FORECITE National™ 305.3.11 [Conspiracy].

See generally, FORECITE National™ 83.1.2 [Conspiracy: Federal Circuit Model Instructions And Notes].

VOLUME 7 - CHAPTER 83

PRACTICE NOTE: See Krulewitch v. U.S. (1949) 336 US 440, 445-47 [69 SCt 716; 93 LEd2d 790]; Harrison v. U.S. (2nd Cir. 1925) 7 F2d 259, 263; see also LaFave & Scott, Substantive Criminal Law (West, 1986) § 6.4, p. 64, fn. omitted.

See generally, FORECITE National™ 305.3.11 [Conspiracy].

See generally, FORECITE National™ 83.1.2 [Conspiracy: Federal Circuit Model Instructions And Notes].

FORECITE National™
Instructions And Issues Omitted By The Pattern Instructions
Copyright & Publication Information

VOLUME 7 - CHAPTER 83

    See FORECITE National™ 83.4.3.4 [Conspiracy: Defense Theory That Statements As To The Existence Of Conspiracy ("Spilling The Beans") Do Not Further The Conspiracy].

See generally, FORECITE National™ 305.3.11 [Conspiracy].

See generally, FORECITE National™ 83.1.2 [Conspiracy: Federal Circuit Model Instructions And Notes].

FORECITE National™
Instructions And Issues Omitted By The Pattern Instructions
Copyright & Publication Information

VOLUME 7 - CHAPTER 83

RATIONALE: A limiting instruction may be appropriate to assure the jury considers the substantive offense and conspiracy separately.

POINTS AND AUTHORITIES: "It is too well settled to require discussion that conspiracy and substantive charges are entirely separate and distinct crimes..." (U.S. v. Gelb (S.D.N.Y. 1959) 175 FSupp 267, 270; see also State v. Olea (AZ 1983) 678 P2d 465, 478; Swindle v. State (FL 1971) 254 So2d 811, 812; People v. Zubik (IL 1992) 588 NE2d 437, 438.)

    See also FORECITE National™ 276.8.2 [Multiple Counts: Special Instructions].

See generally, FORECITE National™ 305.3.11 [Conspiracy].

FEDERALIZATION: To federalize this request, click here. [Constitutional Macro 7.4].

See generally, FORECITE National™ 83.1.2 [Conspiracy: Federal Circuit Model Instructions And Notes].

FORECITE National™
Instructions And Issues Omitted By The Pattern Instructions
Copyright & Publication Information

VOLUME 7 - CHAPTER 83

PRACTICE NOTE: Where the evidence proves a different conspiracy instead of, or addition to, the one which was charged, important issues may arise. (See McSorley, Portable Guide to Federal Conspiracy Law - Developing Strategies for Criminal and Civil Cases (ABA, 2003) Chapter 4, § F.)

    See also FORECITE National™ 83.3.8.1 [Defense Theory That The Evidence Shows Separate Multiple Conspiracies Rather Than Once Simple Conspiracy Alleged By The Prosecution].

    See also FORECITE National™ 83.3.8.2 [Defense Theory That Each Separately Charged Conspiracy Must Be Considered Separately].

    See also FORECITE National™ 273.10.5.5 [Jury Unanimity As To Multiple Object Conspiracies].

See generally, FORECITE National™ 305.3.11 [Conspiracy].

See generally, FORECITE National™ 83.1.2 [Conspiracy: Federal Circuit Model Instructions And Notes].

FORECITE National™
Instructions And Issues Omitted By The Pattern Instructions
Copyright & Publication Information

VOLUME 7 - CHAPTER 83

    See FORECITE National™ 83.4 [Conspiracy: Hearsay Statements Of Coconspirator].

RESEARCH NOTES:

McSorley, Portable Guide to Federal Conspiracy Law - Developing Strategies for Criminal and Civil Cases (ABA, 2003) Chapter 6.

See generally, FORECITE National™ 305.3.11 [Conspiracy].

See generally, FORECITE National™ 83.1.2 [Conspiracy: Federal Circuit Model Instructions And Notes].

FORECITE National™
Instructions And Issues Omitted By The Pattern Instructions
Copyright & Publication Information

VOLUME 7 - CHAPTER 83

PRACTICE NOTE: Even though a corporate officer or agent can conspire with the corporation itself, at least two or more natural persons are required for a conspiracy.  (See McSorley, Portable Guide to Federal Conspiracy Law - Developing Strategies for Criminal and Civil Cases (ABA, 2003), Chapter 2, § C; see also Caplow & Griffin, Multidefendant Criminal Cases: Federal Law & Procedure (West, 1998) § 2:4, p. 20.)

See generally, FORECITE National™ 305.3.11 [Conspiracy].

See generally, FORECITE National™ 83.1.2 [Conspiracy: Federal Circuit Model Instructions And Notes].

VOLUME 7 - CHAPTER 83

PRACTICE NOTE: See FORECITE National™ 47.4 [Deliberate Ignorance/Willful Blindness].

    The 5th Circuit has held that knowing participation in a conspiracy may be established by sufficient evidence of deliberate ignorance. (United States v. Sharpe (5th Cir. 1999) 193 F3d 852, 871-72.) So too has the Ninth Circuit. (United States v. Pacific Hide & Fur Depot, Inc., 768 F2d 1096, 1099 (9th Cir. 1985); United States v. Beckett, 724 F2d 855, 856 (9th Cir. 1984).)  In contrast, the Second and Sixth Circuits have held that it is error to give a deliberate ignorance instruction with respect to that issue. (See U.S. v. Fletcher (2nd Cir. 1991) 928 F2d 495, 502-503; United States v. Warshawsky, 20 F3d 204, 211 (6th Cir. 1994); United States v. Lee, 991 F2d 343, 351 (6th Cir. 1993) [approving the use of a deliberate ignorance instruction even though the offense at issue was conspiracy to possess cocaine with intent to distribute]; see also McSorley, Portable Guide to Federal Conspiracy Law - Developing Strategies for Criminal and Civil Cases (ABA, 2003), Chapter 2, § D(5).)

See generally, FORECITE National™ 305.3.11 [Conspiracy].

See generally, FORECITE National™ 83.1.2 [Conspiracy: Federal Circuit Model Instructions And Notes].