THE SHELLOW COLLECTION
Jury Instructions By James M. Shellow of Wisconsin
Go to Shellow
Collection Table of Contents
Conspiracy: Membership/Participation (Mere Knowledge, Presence, Aid, Cooperation, Association Insufficient)
1. Conspiracy: Liability Attaches Only
After Membership Is Shown
2. Order Of Proof: Proof Of Conspiracy,
Then Proof Of Defendant’s Membership
3. Conspiracy: Prosecution Must Prove
Actual Participation
4. Conspiracy: Membership Must Arise From
Defendant’s Own Conduct
5. Conspiracy: Membership Based On Accused’s
Own Acts And Words
6. Exclusion Of Hearsay Until Membership Is
Proved
7. Conspiracy: Quantum Of Evidence v.
Degree Of Participation
8. Conspiracy: Defendant Must Have A Stake
In The Venture
9. Conspiracy: Stake in Venture Not
Essential, But Relevant
10. Conspiracy: Aid To Success Of Venture Not Enough
11. Similarity Of Conduct And Interests Not Sufficient
12. Conspiracy: Aiding And Abetting Of Acts By
Conspirators Insufficient
13. Conspiracy: Guilt By Association Not Sufficient
14. Conspiracy: Connection To Conspiracy Must Be
Substantial
15. Limited Transaction Within Conspiracy
16. Conspiracy: Mere Association Insufficient
17. Conspiracy: Family Ties Not Sufficient Proof
18. Conspiracy: Mere Association With Perjurers
Insufficient
19. Conspiracy: Mere Knowledge Or Aiding Not Sufficient
20. Conspiracy: Mere Knowledge And Approval
21. Conspiracy: Knowing Assistance To Crime Not
Sufficient
22. Conspiracy: Mere Presence And Knowledge
Insufficient
23. Conspiracy: Presence At The Scene Of The Crime
Insufficient
24. Conspiracy: Mere Willing Participation Not
Sufficient
25. Conspiracy: Unlawful Acts Alone Not Sufficient
26. Conspiracy: Mere Suspicion Or Acquiescence
Insufficient
27. Willing Aid To Conspiracy Not Proof Of Membership
28. Loan To Conspirator Not Enough To Prove Membership
29. Mere Buyer-Seller Relationship Is Not Conspiracy
30. Mere Cooperation Of Seller And Buyer Is Not
Sufficient
31. Buyer Seller: Mere Act Of Sale Not Proof Of
Conspiracy
32. Conspiracy: Mere Knowledge Of Buyer’s Intent To
Resell Not Sufficient
33. Participation In Conspiracy Ends With Arrest
THE SHELLOW COLLECTION
Jury Instructions By James M. Shellow of Wisconsin
1. Conspiracy: Liability Attaches Only After Membership Is Shown
ALERT: Carefully review the Caveats and Disclaimers before using these materials.
SAMPLE INSTRUCTION:
In determining whether a conspiracy existed, you should consider the actions and declarations of all of the alleged participants. However, in determining whether the defendant was a member of the conspiracy, if any, you may consider only (his/her) own acts and statements. (He/She) cannot be bound by the acts or declarations of other participants unless and until it is established that a conspiracy existed, and that (he/she) was one of its members.
AUTHORITIES:
District of Columbia Bar Association, Criminal Jury Instructions for the District of Columbia, No. 4.92 (2d Ed. 1972); United States v. Haldeman, 181 U.S. App. D.C. 254 (D.C. Cir. 1976);United States v. Tarantino, 269 U.S. App. D.C. 398 (D.C. Cir. 1988); United States v. Slade, 200 U.S. App. D.C. 240 (D.C. Cir. 1980).
RELATED SHELLOW MATERIALS:
See also THE SHELLOW COLLECTION: Conspiracy.
See also THE SHELLOW COLLECTION: Drugs, Controlled Substances: Conspiracy.
RELATED NCJIC MATERIALS:
See NCJIC Chapter 83: Conspiracy.
See NCJIC 83.3.6 [Defendant's Membership In Conspiracy: Defense Theories].
See NCJIC 83.3.6.7 [Conspiracy: Membership Must Be Based On Acts And Statements Of The Defendant].
See NCJIC 83.3.10 [Pinkerton Liability].
THE SHELLOW COLLECTION
Jury Instructions By James M. Shellow of Wisconsin
2. Order Of Proof: Proof Of Conspiracy, Then Proof Of Defendant’s Membership
ALERT: Carefully review the Caveats and Disclaimers before using these materials.
SAMPLE INSTRUCTION:
Once the government has shown the existence of a conspiracy, a defendant may be found to be a member of that conspiracy only if the government has proven (his/her) connection with it beyond a reasonable doubt.
AUTHORITIES:
Zenith Radio Corporation v. Matsushita Electric Industrial Company, Ltd., 505 F. Supp. 1169, citing, United States v. Cooper, 567 F.2d 252, 253 (3d Cir. 1977), noting United States v. Dunn, 564 F.2d 348, 356-57 (9th Cir. 1977).
RELATED SHELLOW MATERIALS:
See also THE SHELLOW COLLECTION: Conspiracy.
See also THE SHELLOW COLLECTION: Drugs, Controlled Substances: Conspiracy.
RELATED NCJIC MATERIALS:
See NCJIC Chapter 83: Conspiracy.
See NCJIC 83.3.6 [Defendant's Membership In Conspiracy: Defense Theories].
THE SHELLOW COLLECTION
Jury Instructions By James M. Shellow of Wisconsin
3. Conspiracy: Prosecution Must Prove Actual Participation
ALERT: Carefully review the Caveats and Disclaimers before using these materials.
SAMPLE INSTRUCTION:
The mere knowledge of a defendant that others had formed a conspiracy to violate the law and even his full sympathy with the object of that conspiracy, without more, would not make (him/her) a conspirator. [There must be proof beyond a reasonable doubt of (his/her) active participation in the conspiracy charged].
CASES WHERE THE ABOVE INSTRUCTION WAS GIVEN:
United States v. Mercado, Case No. 93-CR-116 (E.D. Wis. 1994) (bracketed material deleted); United States v. Kramer, No. 81-CR-106 (E.D. Wis. 1982) (bracketed material deleted); United States v. Matta, 82-CR-20 (E.D. Wis. 1982) (bracketed material deleted); United States v. Stillman, No. 80-133-Erie (W.D. Pa. 1981).
RELATED SHELLOW MATERIALS:
See also THE SHELLOW COLLECTION: Conspiracy.
See also THE SHELLOW COLLECTION: Drugs, Controlled Substances: Conspiracy.
RELATED NCJIC MATERIALS:
See NCJIC Chapter 83: Conspiracy.
See NCJIC 83.3.6 [Defendant's Membership In Conspiracy: Defense Theories].
THE SHELLOW COLLECTION
Jury Instructions By James M. Shellow of Wisconsin
4. Conspiracy: Membership Must Arise From Defendant’s Own Conduct
ALERT: Carefully review the Caveats and Disclaimers before using these materials.
SAMPLE INSTRUCTION # 1:
In order to prove a defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of conspiracy, the government must prove an individual defendant's participation in such unlawful conspiracy by (his/her) own words and actions and not those of other alleged participants.
AUTHORITIES:
United States v. Cardi, 478 F.2d 1362 (7th Cir. 1973); United States v. Fellabaum, 408 F.2d 220, 226 (7th Cir. 1969).
CASES WHERE THE ABOVE INSTRUCTION WAS GIVEN:
United States v. Mercado, Case No. 93-CR-116 (E.D. Wis. 1994).
SAMPLE INSTRUCTION # 2:
The element of participation or membership in a conspiracy must be considered and decided with specific and individual reference to the particular defendant you are considering in the case. This must be emphasized even though conspiracy and membership in a conspiracy involves relationships between participants. Each defendant's participation in the alleged conspiracy, if it is to be found, must be established by evidence of the defendant's own words, (his/her) own actions and the general course of (his/her) conduct.
AUTHORITIES:
United States v. Haldeman, 559 F.2d 31, 117-18 (D.C. Cir. 1976) [en banc] [per curiam].
SAMPLE INSTRUCTION # 3:
A defendant can only be found guilty of being a member of a conspiracy if (he/she) has committed acts or made statements showing that (he/she) was a member. In determining whether a defendant was a member of a conspiracy, you may consider the acts and declarations of all persons found to be members of that conspiracy, but you may not convict a defendant of being a conspirator unless you find from (his/her) own acts and statements substantial evidence of (his/her) membership in the conspiracy.
AUTHORITY:
United States v. Durrive, 902 F.2d 1221, 1225-28 (7th Cir. 1990).
SAMPLE INSTRUCTION # 4:
Proof of membership in a conspiracy must be shown by the alleged co-conspirator's own acts and declarations. An alleged co-conspirator must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt to have joined a conspiracy solely by evidence of (his/her) own acts and declarations.
AUTHORITIES:
United States v. Meyerson, 631 F.2d 525 (7th Cir. 1980), cert. denied, 101 S.Ct. 1373, citing Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60, 74-75, 62 S.Ct. 457, 86 L.Ed. 680 (1942).
RELATED SHELLOW MATERIALS:
See also THE SHELLOW COLLECTION: Conspiracy.
See also THE SHELLOW COLLECTION: Drugs, Controlled Substances: Conspiracy.
RELATED NCJIC MATERIALS:
See NCJIC Chapter 83: Conspiracy.
See NCJIC 83.3.6 [Defendant's Membership In Conspiracy: Defense Theories].
See NCJIC 83.3.6.7 [Conspiracy: Membership Must Be Based On Acts And Statements Of The Defendant].
THE SHELLOW COLLECTION
Jury Instructions By James M. Shellow of Wisconsin
5. Conspiracy: Membership Based On Accused’s Own Acts And Words
ALERT: Carefully review the Caveats and Disclaimers before using these materials.
SAMPLE INSTRUCTION:
As a matter of law, membership in a conspiracy depends on the accused's own acts and words. Co-conspirator statements determined to be admissible by the trial judge may be considered by the jury to decide what the defendant did and said, or to help understand the defendant's acts and words, but it is only the defendant's own acts and words upon which the jury can rely for evidence that the defendant was a member of a conspiracy.
AUTHORITIES:
United States v. Gaines, 988 F.2d 750, 772-73 (7th Cir. 1993), citing United States v. Martinez de Ortiz, 907 F.2d 629, 635 (7th Cir. 1990) (en banc) and United States v. Torres, 965 F.2d 303, 308 (7th Cir. 1991).
RELATED SHELLOW MATERIALS:
See also THE SHELLOW COLLECTION: Conspiracy.
See also THE SHELLOW COLLECTION: Drugs, Controlled Substances: Conspiracy.
RELATED NCJIC MATERIALS:
See NCJIC Chapter 83: Conspiracy.
See NCJIC 83.3.6 [Defendant's Membership In Conspiracy: Defense Theories].
See NCJIC 83.3.6.7 [Conspiracy: Membership Must Be Based On Acts And Statements Of The Defendant].
THE SHELLOW COLLECTION
Jury Instructions By James M. Shellow of Wisconsin
6. Exclusion Of Hearsay Until Membership Is Proved
See THE SHELLOW COLLECTION: Conspiracy: Statements/Admissions/Hearsay -- Direct Evidence Of Conspiracy Membership Required Before Hearsay May Be Admitted.
THE SHELLOW COLLECTION
Jury Instructions By James M. Shellow of Wisconsin
7. Conspiracy: Quantum Of Evidence v. Degree Of Participation
ALERT: Carefully review the Caveats and Disclaimers before using these materials.
SAMPLE INSTRUCTION:
Once the existence of a conspiracy is established, evidence establishing beyond a reasonable doubt a connection of a defendant with the conspiracy, even though the connection is slight, is sufficient to convict (him/her) of knowing participation in the conspiracy. The word "slight" modifies "connection" and not "evidence." It is tied to that which is proved, not to the type of evidence or the burden of proof.
AUTHORITIES:
United States v. Thomas, 586 F.2d 123, 127 (9th Cir. 1978), citing, United States v. Dunn, 564 F.2d 348, 357 (9th Cir. 1977).
RELATED SHELLOW MATERIALS:
See also THE SHELLOW COLLECTION: Conspiracy.
See also THE SHELLOW COLLECTION: Drugs, Controlled Substances: Conspiracy.
RELATED NCJIC MATERIALS:
See NCJIC Chapter 83: Conspiracy.
See NCJIC 83.3.6 [Defendant's Membership In Conspiracy: Defense Theories].
THE SHELLOW COLLECTION
Jury Instructions By James M. Shellow of Wisconsin
8. Conspiracy: Defendant Must Have A Stake In The Venture
ALERT: Carefully review the Caveats and Disclaimers before using these materials.
SAMPLE INSTRUCTION # 1 (on site):
A person who has no stake in a venture which has as its object the purchase of drugs is not a conspirator of those who sought to purchase the drug. In order for the government to prove that a defendant was a conspirator with others who sought to purchase and possess drugs, it is necessary for the government to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that such person's fortunes would rise or fall with the success or failure of the conspiracy.
AUTHORITIES:
United States v. Falcone, 109 F.2d 579 (2d Cir. 1940); United States v. Blankenship, 970 F.2d 283, 286 (7th Cir. 1992); but see United States v. Curley, 55 F.3d 254, 257 (7th Cir. 1995) ["stake in venture" not required].
SAMPLE INSTRUCTION # 2:
A person is not a member of a conspiracy unless (he/she) has a stake in the venture. That is, unless (he/she) will profit by the achievement of the objectives of the conspiracy. A person who merely aids and abets conspirators is not a member of the conspiracy.
CASES WHERE THE ABOVE INSTRUCTION WAS GIVEN:
United States v. James E. Johnson, Case No. 97-CR-211 (E.D. Wis. 1998).
SAMPLE INSTRUCTION # 3:
In weighing whether [defendant] was a member of the alleged conspiracy, you may consider whether (he/she) had a stake in that venture. In other words, has the government offered evidence that [defendant] shared, or agreed to share, in the profits of the alleged conspiracy.
AUTHORITY:
United States v. Thomas, 150 F.3d 743, 745 (7th Cir. 1998) (per curiam).
RELATED SHELLOW MATERIALS:
See also THE SHELLOW COLLECTION: Conspiracy.
See also THE SHELLOW COLLECTION: Drugs, Controlled Substances: Conspiracy.
RELATED NCJIC MATERIALS:
See NCJIC Chapter 83: Conspiracy.
See NCJIC 83.3.6 [Defendant's Membership In Conspiracy: Defense Theories].
THE SHELLOW COLLECTION
Jury Instructions By James M. Shellow of Wisconsin
9. Conspiracy: Stake in Venture Not Essential, But Relevant
ALERT: Carefully review the Caveats and Disclaimers before using these materials.
SAMPLE INSTRUCTION:
While a stake in the venture may not be essential to establish a defendant's membership in a conspiratorial agreement, it is not irrelevant to the question of whether he joined a conspiratorial agreement.
AUTHORITIES:
Cf. United States v. Gabriel, 810 F.2d 627, 634 (7th Cir. 1987) quoting Direct Sales Co. v. United States, 319 U.S. 703, 713 (1943).
RELATED SHELLOW MATERIALS:
See also THE SHELLOW COLLECTION: Conspiracy.
See also THE SHELLOW COLLECTION: Drugs, Controlled Substances: Conspiracy.
RELATED NCJIC MATERIALS:
See NCJIC Chapter 83: Conspiracy.
See NCJIC 83.3.6 [Defendant's Membership In Conspiracy: Defense Theories].
THE SHELLOW COLLECTION
Jury Instructions By James M. Shellow of Wisconsin
10. Conspiracy: Aid To Success Of Venture Not Enough
ALERT: Carefully review the Caveats and Disclaimers before using these materials.
SAMPLE INSTRUCTION:
Merely because the defendant was associated with a criminal venture and engaged in affirmative conduct to aid in the success of the venture with knowledge that his acts would assist its perpetration does not make the defendant a conspirator in the absence of proof beyond a reasonable doubt that he knowingly and intentionally entered into conspiratorial agreement.
AUTHORITIES:
United States v. Cowart, 595 F.2d 1023, 1031 (5th Cir. 1979).
CASES WHERE THE ABOVE INSTRUCTION WAS GIVEN:
United States v. Kehm, No. 84-3028 (7th Cir. 1986).
RELATED SHELLOW MATERIALS:
See also THE SHELLOW COLLECTION: Conspiracy.
See also THE SHELLOW COLLECTION: Drugs, Controlled Substances: Conspiracy.
RELATED NCJIC MATERIALS:
See NCJIC Chapter 83: Conspiracy.
See NCJIC 83.3.6 [Defendant's Membership In Conspiracy: Defense Theories].
THE SHELLOW COLLECTION
Jury Instructions By James M. Shellow of Wisconsin
11. Similarity Of Conduct And Interests Not Sufficient
ALERT: Carefully review the Caveats and Disclaimers before using these materials.
SAMPLE INSTRUCTION # 1:
Mere similarity of conduct by some of the alleged co-conspirators or the fact that they may have been associated with each other or that two or more of them may have discussed together common aims and interests [outside the alleged conspiracy] does not by itself establish that there was a conspiracy. [There must be an agreement.]
AUTHORITIES:
United States v. Umentum, 547 F.2d 987 (7th Cir. 1976); United States v. Colasurdo, 435 F.2d 585, 593 (2d Cir. 1971); Nipp v. United States, 422 F.2d 509 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 397 U.S. 1108, 399 U.S. 913 (1970); see also, A.L.R. Theatre Corp. v. Loew's Inc., 335 F.2d 495 (6th Cir. 1966); Independent Iron Works v. United States Steel Corporation, 322 F.2d 656 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 395 U.S. 922 (1963).
CASES WHERE THE ABOVE INSTRUCTION WAS GIVEN:
United States v. Mercado, Case No. 93-CR-116 (E.D. Wis. 1994); United States v. Matta, 82-CR-20 (E.D. Wis. 1982); United States v. Kramer, No. 81-CR-106 (E.D. Wis. 1982); United States v. Stillman, No. 80-133-Erie (W.D. Pa. 1981) [bracketed material added]; United States v. Robinson, No. 78-CR-106 (E.D. Wis. 1979); United States v. Colasurdo, 453 F.2d 585, 593 (2d Cir. 1971).
SAMPLE INSTRUCTION # 2:
Mere similarity of conduct among various persons, and the fact that they may have assembled together and discussed common aims and interests, does not necessarily establish the existence of a conspiracy. The evidence in the case must show beyond a reasonable doubt that the members willfully or in some way or manner positively or tacitly came to a mutual understanding to try to accomplish the particular common and unlawful plan charged in the indictment.
AUTHORITY:
United States v. Kenny, 645 F.2d 1323, 1337 (9th Cir. 1981).
CASES WHERE THE ABOVE INSTRUCTION WAS GIVEN:
United States v. Linton, No. CR-R-80-24-ECR (D.C. Nev. 1981).
RELATED SHELLOW MATERIALS:
See also THE SHELLOW COLLECTION: Conspiracy.
See also THE SHELLOW COLLECTION: Drugs, Controlled Substances: Conspiracy.
RELATED NCJIC MATERIALS:
See NCJIC Chapter 83: Conspiracy.
See NCJIC 83.3.6 [Defendant's Membership In Conspiracy: Defense Theories].
THE SHELLOW COLLECTION
Jury Instructions By James M. Shellow of Wisconsin
12. Conspiracy: Aiding And Abetting Of Acts By Conspirators Insufficient
ALERT: Carefully review the Caveats and Disclaimers before using these materials.
SAMPLE INSTRUCTION:
A conspiracy is an agreement and not a group of persons. Accordingly, in order for a defendant to be proven guilty of joining a conspiracy, the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he joined in an actual agreement. If all the government has proven is that a defendant associated with a group of conspirators, the defendant must be found not guilty.
AUTHORITIES:
United States v. Townsend, 924 F.2d 1385, 1390 (7th Cir. 1991); People v. Strauch, 240 Ill. 60, 73 88 N.E. 155, 159 (1909).
RELATED SHELLOW MATERIALS:
See also THE SHELLOW COLLECTION: Conspiracy.
See also THE SHELLOW COLLECTION: Drugs, Controlled Substances: Conspiracy.
RELATED NCJIC MATERIALS:
See NCJIC Chapter 83: Conspiracy.
See also generally NCJIC Chapter 64: Accomplice Liability (Aiding And Abetting, Accessory Before The Fact, Etc.).
See NCJIC 83.3.6 [Defendant's Membership In Conspiracy: Defense Theories].
THE SHELLOW COLLECTION
Jury Instructions By James M. Shellow of Wisconsin
13. Conspiracy: Guilt By Association Not Sufficient
ALERT: Carefully review the Caveats and Disclaimers before using these materials.
SAMPLE INSTRUCTION # 1:
Suspicion, even if strong, is no substitute for proof. Before one can be proven a conspirator there must be evidence beyond a reasonable doubt of (his/her) connection with a conspiracy. Guilt by association cannot be the necessary proof.
AUTHORITIES:
Ong Way Jong v. United States, 245 F.2d 392 (9th Cir. 1957).
CASES WHERE THE ABOVE INSTRUCTION WAS GIVEN:
United States v. Kehm, No. 84-3028 (7th Cir. 1986).
SAMPLE INSTRUCTION # 2:
"Guilt by association" does not sustain a conviction. A close working relationship between defendants does not permit you to infer a criminal or conspiratorial relationship. Mere similarity of conduct does not establish a conspiracy. The mere fact that defendants may have assembled together, either on a business or social level, to discuss common aims and interests does not without more establish a conspiracy. Even where a defendant might have known that (his/her) friends or business associates were engaged in criminal activity, this mere knowledge will not support a finding that the defendant should have known of or shared (his/her) friends' or associates' specific criminal intent. The evidence must show beyond a reasonable doubt that the members of the alleged conspiracy willfully and in some way came to a mutual understanding to try to accomplish a single, common and unlawful plan to ___________ (object of plan, e.g., to defraud).
AUTHORITIES:
United States v. Jenkins, 779 F.2d 606 (11th Cir. 1986); United States v. Pearlstein, 576 F.2d 531 (3d Cir. 1978); United States v. Van de Carr, 343 F. Supp. 993 (C.D. Cal. 1972).
RELATED SHELLOW MATERIALS:
See also THE SHELLOW COLLECTION: Conspiracy.
See also THE SHELLOW COLLECTION: Drugs, Controlled Substances: Conspiracy.
RELATED NCJIC MATERIALS:
See NCJIC Chapter 83: Conspiracy.
See NCJIC 83.3.6 [Defendant's Membership In Conspiracy: Defense Theories].
See NCJIC Macro 5.2 [Guilt By Association].
THE SHELLOW COLLECTION
Jury Instructions By James M. Shellow of Wisconsin
14. Conspiracy: Connection To Conspiracy Must Be Substantial
ALERT: Carefully review the Caveats and Disclaimers before using these materials.
SAMPLE INSTRUCTION:
__________ (name of defendant) is contesting (his/her) membership in any ________ (type of conspiracy e.g., drug conspiracy) and, accordingly, (he/she) cannot be convicted of that offense unless the evidence of (his/her) connection to that conspiracy is substantial.
AUTHORITIES:
United States v. Sanchez, 32 F.3d 1002, 1004 (7th Cir. 1994); United States v. Fagan, 35 F.3d 1203, 1206 (7th Cir. 1994), citing United States v. Durrive, 902 F.2d 1221, 1228 (7th Cir. 1990).
RELATED SHELLOW MATERIALS:
See also THE SHELLOW COLLECTION: Conspiracy.
See also THE SHELLOW COLLECTION: Drugs, Controlled Substances: Conspiracy.
RELATED NCJIC MATERIALS:
See NCJIC Chapter 83: Conspiracy.
See NCJIC 83.3.6 [Defendant's Membership In Conspiracy: Defense Theories].
THE SHELLOW COLLECTION
Jury Instructions By James M. Shellow of Wisconsin
15. Limited Transaction Within Conspiracy
ALERT: Carefully review the Caveats and Disclaimers before using these materials.
SAMPLE INSTRUCTION:
Evidence of participation in a limited transaction in a broad, multiparty conspiracy is not sufficient, standing alone, to support an inference that the limited participant had knowledge of and associated (himself/herself) with the conspiracy, unless the nature of the limited transaction itself demonstrates the familiarity of the limited participant with high-level participation in the overall conspiracy.
AUTHORITIES:
United States v. Magnano, 543 F.2d 431, 434-35 (2d Cir. 1976); United States v. Torres, 503 F.2d 1120, 1123-24 (2d Cir. 1974).
RELATED SHELLOW MATERIALS:
See also THE SHELLOW COLLECTION: Conspiracy.
See also THE SHELLOW COLLECTION: Drugs, Controlled Substances: Conspiracy.
RELATED NCJIC MATERIALS:
See NCJIC Chapter 83: Conspiracy.
See NCJIC 83.3.6 [Defendant's Membership In Conspiracy: Defense Theories].
THE SHELLOW COLLECTION
Jury Instructions By James M. Shellow of Wisconsin
16. Conspiracy: Mere Association Insufficient
ALERT: Carefully review the Caveats and Disclaimers before using these materials.
SAMPLE INSTRUCTION # 1:
Merely because a defendant has associated with persons who purchased drugs or has assisted such persons in their purchase does not mean that this defendant has been proven to be a conspirator.
SAMPLE INSTRUCTION # 2:
The mere fact that a defendant knew and associated with conspirators does not by itself make a defendant a member of the conspiracy even though the defendant may have been in sympathy with the object of the conspiracy.
SAMPLE INSTRUCTION # 3:
There mere fact that the defendant was in the company of others who committed a criminal offense is not evidence of his participation in the crime, even if the defendant knew that others were going to commit a crime, and was in sympathy with their objectives.
SAMPLE INSTRUCTION # 4:
Evidence which at best shows only association and knowledge of the illegal activities of another is insufficient to establish intent to join a conspiracy.
AUTHORITIES:
United States v. Mendez, 496 F.2d l28, l30 (5th Cir. l974).
CASES WHERE THE ABOVE INSTRUCTION WAS GIVEN:
United States v. Kramer, No. 8l-CR-l06 (E.D. Wis. l982); United States v. Matta, No. 82-CR-20 (E.D. Wis. l982); United States v. Umentum, No. 75-CR-l03 (E.D. Wis. l976).
SAMPLE INSTRUCTION # 5:
Neither mere association and activity with a co-conspirator, nor even knowledge of the conspiracy's existence, meet the standards required by law to link a defendant to the conspiracy charged.
AUTHORITIES:
United States v. Peterson, 549 F.2d 654 (9th Cir. 1977), citing United States v. Basurto, 479 F.2d 781 (9th Cir. 1974).
CASES WHERE THE ABOVE INSTRUCTION WAS GIVEN:
United States v. Kehm, No. 84-3028 (7th Cir. 1986).
SAMPLE INSTRUCTION # 6:
Guilt of conspiracy may not be inferred from mere association.
AUTHORITY:
Evans v. United States, 257 F.2d 121 (9th Cir. 1958), cert. denied, 79 S.Ct. 98.
RELATED SHELLOW MATERIALS:
See also THE SHELLOW COLLECTION: Conspiracy.
See also THE SHELLOW COLLECTION: Drugs, Controlled Substances: Conspiracy.
RELATED NCJIC MATERIALS:
See also NCJIC 43.1 [Mere Association Insufficient For Criminal Liability].
See generally NCJIC Chapter 83: Conspiracy.
See also NCJIC 83.3.6 [Defendant's Membership In Conspiracy: Defense Theories].
See also NCJIC 83.3.6.5 [Conspiracy: Defense Theory That Knowing Association Is Insufficient].
THE SHELLOW COLLECTION
Jury Instructions By James M. Shellow of Wisconsin
17. Conspiracy: Family Ties Not Sufficient Proof
ALERT: Carefully review the Caveats and Disclaimers before using these materials.
SAMPLE INSTRUCTION:
Merely because evidence shows that members of __________’s (name of defendant) family engaged in a conspiracy to _________ (object of conspiracy e.g., possess and distribute drugs) does not permit the inference that __________ (name of defendant) was involved in their unlawful conduct even though (he/she) may have had knowledge and even approved of their activities.
AUTHORITY:
United States v. de Soto, 885 F.2d 354, 367 (7th Cir. 1989).
RELATED SHELLOW MATERIALS:
See also THE SHELLOW COLLECTION: Conspiracy.
See also THE SHELLOW COLLECTION: Drugs, Controlled Substances: Conspiracy.
RELATED NCJIC MATERIALS:
See also NCJIC 43.1 [Mere Association Insufficient For Criminal Liability].
See NCJIC Chapter 83: Conspiracy.
See NCJIC 83.3.6 [Defendant's Membership In Conspiracy: Defense Theories].
See also NCJIC 83.3.6.6 [Conspiracy: Defense Theory That Family Relationship Is Insufficient].
THE SHELLOW COLLECTION
Jury Instructions By James M. Shellow of Wisconsin
18. Conspiracy: Mere Association With Perjurers Insufficient
ALERT: Carefully review the Caveats and Disclaimers before using these materials.
SAMPLE INSTRUCTION:
Merely because a defendant has associated with persons who committed perjury does not mean that this defendant has been proven to be a conspirator.
RELATED SHELLOW MATERIALS:
See also THE SHELLOW COLLECTION: Conspiracy.
See also THE SHELLOW COLLECTION: Drugs, Controlled Substances: Conspiracy.
RELATED NCJIC MATERIALS:
See also NCJIC 43.1 [Mere Association Insufficient For Criminal Liability].
See NCJIC Chapter 83: Conspiracy.
See NCJIC 83.3.6 [Defendant's Membership In Conspiracy: Defense Theories].
See also NCJIC 83.3.6.5 [Conspiracy: Defense Theory That Knowing Association Is Insufficient].
THE SHELLOW COLLECTION
Jury Instructions By James M. Shellow of Wisconsin
19. Conspiracy: Mere Knowledge Or Aiding Not Sufficient
ALERT: Carefully review the Caveats and Disclaimers before using these materials.
SAMPLE INSTRUCTION # 1:
Evidence establishing knowledge of another's criminal activity and an aiding of it does not of itself establish conspiracy [, but may be considered in determining membership in a conspiracy].
AUTHORITIES:
United States v. Krol, 374 F.2d 776, 778-79 (7th Cir. 1967).
CASES WHERE THE ABOVE INSTRUCTION WAS GIVEN:
United States v. Kramer, Case No. 81-CR-106 (E.D. Wis. 1982) [including bracketed material]; United States v. Umentum, No. 75-CR-103 (E.D. Wis. 1976).
SAMPLE INSTRUCTION # 2:
Evidence establishing knowledge of another's criminal activity and an aiding of it does not of itself establish conspiracy.
AUTHORITIES:
United States v. Krol, 374 F.2d 776, 778-779 (7th Cir. 1967).
CASES WHERE THE ABOVE INSTRUCTION WAS GIVEN:
United States v. Umentum, No. 75-CR-103 (E.D. Wis. 1976).
RELATED SHELLOW MATERIALS:
See also THE SHELLOW COLLECTION: Conspiracy.
See also THE SHELLOW COLLECTION: Drugs, Controlled Substances: Conspiracy.
RELATED NCJIC MATERIALS:
See also NCJIC 43.1 [Mere Association Insufficient For Criminal Liability].
See NCJIC Chapter 83: Conspiracy.
See NCJIC 83.3.6 [Defendant's Membership In Conspiracy: Defense Theories].
See NCJIC 83.3.6.13 [Conspiracy: Defense Theory That Defendant Merely Approved Of Or Acquiesced In The Object And Purpose Of The Conspiracy Without Becoming A Member Of It].
THE SHELLOW COLLECTION
Jury Instructions By James M. Shellow of Wisconsin
20. Conspiracy: Mere Knowledge And Approval
ALERT: Carefully review the Caveats and Disclaimers before using these materials.
SAMPLE INSTRUCTION:
The mere fact that the defendant may have known that other co-defendants were engaged in a conspiracy to ________ (insert target offense) does not make (him/her) a member of that conspiracy even though (he/she) associated with such defendants, was in contact with them, approved of the objectives of their conspiracies, and even though (he/she) may have profited from the commission of their conspiratorial objectives.
RELATED SHELLOW MATERIALS:
See also THE SHELLOW COLLECTION: Conspiracy.
See also THE SHELLOW COLLECTION: Drugs, Controlled Substances: Conspiracy.
RELATED NCJIC MATERIALS:
See also NCJIC 43.1 [Mere Association Insufficient For Criminal Liability].
See NCJIC Chapter 83: Conspiracy.
See NCJIC 83.3.6 [Defendant's Membership In Conspiracy: Defense Theories].
See NCJIC 83.3.6.13 [Conspiracy: Defense Theory That Defendant Merely Approved Of Or Acquiesced In The Object And Purpose Of The Conspiracy Without Becoming A Member Of It].
THE SHELLOW COLLECTION
Jury Instructions By James M. Shellow of Wisconsin
21. Conspiracy: Knowing Assistance To Crime Not Sufficient
ALERT: Carefully review the Caveats and Disclaimers before using these materials.
SAMPLE INSTRUCTION:
One may know of and intentionally assist a substantive crime without joining a conspiracy to commit the crime.
AUTHORITIES:
United States v. Townsend, 924 F.2d 1385, 1390-95 (7th Cir. 1991), citing United States v. Giovannetti, 919 F.2d 1223 (7th Cir. 1990) and United States v. Falcone, 311 U.S. 205 (1940).
RELATED SHELLOW MATERIALS:
See also THE SHELLOW COLLECTION: Conspiracy.
See also THE SHELLOW COLLECTION: Drugs, Controlled Substances: Conspiracy.
RELATED NCJIC MATERIALS:
See NCJIC 64.6 [Accomplice Liability: Miscellaneous Defense Theories].
See NCJIC Chapter 83: Conspiracy.
See NCJIC 83.3.6 [Defendant's Membership In Conspiracy: Defense Theories].
See NCJIC 83.3.6.13 [Conspiracy: Defense Theory That Defendant Merely Approved Of Or Acquiesced In The Object And Purpose Of The Conspiracy Without Becoming A Member Of It].
THE SHELLOW COLLECTION
Jury Instructions By James M. Shellow of Wisconsin
22. Conspiracy: Mere Presence And Knowledge Insufficient
ALERT: Carefully review the Caveats and Disclaimers before using these materials.
SAMPLE INSTRUCTION # 1:
Merely because a defendant was present at meetings with persons who conspired and may have been aware of their conspiracy does not make such defendant a conspirator. [But it may be considered by the jury to determine whether the defendant was a conspirator.
AUTHORITIES:
United States v. Umentum, 547 F.2d 987 (7th Cir. 1976); Roberts v. United States, 416 F.2d 1216 (5th Cir. 1969).
CASES WHERE THE ABOVE INSTRUCTION WAS GIVEN:
United States v. Mercado, Case No. 93-CR-116 (E.D. Wis. 1994) [bracketed material included]; United States v. Stillman, No. 80-133-Erie (W.D. Pa. 1981); United States v. Kramer, No. 81-CR-106 (E.D. Wis. 1982) [bracketed material added]; United States v. Matta, No. 82-CR-20 (E.D. Wis. 1982) [bracketed material added]; United States v. Umentum, No. 75-CR-103 (E.D. Wis. 1976).
SAMPLE INSTRUCTION # 2:
Merely because a defendant was present at meetings with persons who conspired and may have been aware of their conspiracy does not make such a defendant a conspirator, unless it is shown that he entered into an agreement.
AUTHORITIES:
United States v. Stillman, No. 80-133-Erie (W.D. Pa. 1981).
SAMPLE INSTRUCTION # 3:
The mere presence of a defendant where a crime is being committed, even coupled with knowledge by the defendant that a crime is being committed, or the mere negative acquiescence by a defendant in the criminal conduct of others, even with guilty knowledge, is not sufficient to establish his guilt. It may be foolish to stand by when others are acting illegally, or to associate with those who have committed a crime. Such conduct or association, however, without more, does not establish guilt.
AUTHORITIES:
United States v. Stanchich, 550 F.2d 1294, 1300 (2d Cir. 1977) (Friendly, J.); United States v. Pardo, 636 F.2d 535, 549 (D.C. Cir. 1980).
SAMPLE INSTRUCTION # 4:
Mere presence at meetings between persons who may be members of a conspiracy and knowledge that the meeting involves the conspiracy are not, by themselves, sufficient to establish the defendant's membership in the conspiracy.
Mere association with conspirators or those involved in a criminal enterprise is by itself not sufficient to prove a defendant's participation or membership in a conspiracy.
However, evidence of presence or association may be considered by you as one aspect of determining whether the defendant intentionally joined the charged conspiracy.
CASES WHERE THE ABOVE INSTRUCTION WAS GIVEN:
United States v. Curley, Case No. 93-CR-86-S (W.D. Wis. 1994).
SAMPLE INSTRUCTION # 5:
A defendant's mere knowledge of, approval of, association with, or presence at a conspiracy is insufficient to establish his participation in the conspiracy.
AUTHORITY:
United States v. Durrive, 902 F.2d 1221, 1225 (7th Cir. 1990).
SAMPLE INSTRUCTION # 6:
Merely because a defendant was present at meetings with persons who conspired and may have been aware of their conspiracy does not make such defendant a conspirator.
AUTHORITY:
Roberts v. United States, 416 F.2d 1216 (5th Cir. 1969).
CASES WHERE THE ABOVE INSTRUCTION WAS GIVEN:
United States v. Stillman, No. 80-133-Erie (W.D. Pa. 1981); United States v. Umentum, No. 75-CR-103 (E.D. Wis. 1976).
RELATED SHELLOW MATERIALS:
See also THE SHELLOW COLLECTION: Conspiracy.
See also THE SHELLOW COLLECTION: Drugs, Controlled Substances: Conspiracy.
RELATED NCJIC MATERIALS:
See NCJIC Chapter 83: Conspiracy.
See NCJIC 83.3.6 [Defendant's Membership In Conspiracy: Defense Theories].
See NCJIC 83.3.6.12 [Conspiracy: Mere Presence Insufficient To Prove Membership].
THE SHELLOW COLLECTION
Jury Instructions By James M. Shellow of Wisconsin
23. Conspiracy: Presence At The Scene Of The Crime Insufficient
ALERT: Carefully review the Caveats and Disclaimers before using these materials.
SAMPLE INSTRUCTION # 1:
You are instructed that mere presence at the scene of and during the commission of a crime is not sufficient to form the basis for conviction as a conspirator.
SAMPLE INSTRUCTION # 2:
Presence at the scene of the crime and knowledge that a crime is being committed are not sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt. Likewise, mere association with conspirators or those involved in a criminal enterprise is insufficient to prove the defendant's participation or membership in a conspiracy.
AUTHORITIES:
7th Cir. Committee 5.11 [Mere Presence / Association / Activity] [formerly 3.04 (1980), modified], see committee comment; United States v. Garcia, 562 F.2d 411, 414 (7th Cir. 1977); United States v. Scholle, 553 F.2d 1109, 1118 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 940 (1977).
CASES WHERE THE ABOVE INSTRUCTION WAS GIVEN:
United States v. Napue, No. 84-CR-155 (N.D. Ill. 1985).
RELATED SHELLOW MATERIALS:
See also THE SHELLOW COLLECTION: Conspiracy.
See also THE SHELLOW COLLECTION: Drugs, Controlled Substances: Conspiracy.
RELATED NCJIC MATERIALS:
See NCJIC Chapter 83: Conspiracy.
See NCJIC 83.3.6 [Defendant's Membership In Conspiracy: Defense Theories].
See NCJIC 83.3.6.12 [Conspiracy: Mere Presence Insufficient To Prove Membership].
THE SHELLOW COLLECTION
Jury Instructions By James M. Shellow of Wisconsin
24. Conspiracy: Mere Willing Participation Not Sufficient
ALERT: Carefully review the Caveats and Disclaimers before using these materials.
SAMPLE INSTRUCTION:
A mere willing participation in acts with alleged co-conspirators, knowing in a general way that their intent was to break the law, is insufficient to establish membership in a conspiracy.
AUTHORITIES:
United States v. Purin, 486 F.2d 1363, 1369 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 417 U.S. 930 (1974), cert. denied sub nom., Da Silva v. United States, 416 U.S. 987 (1974), cited in United States v. Martinez-Torres, 556 F. Supp. 1255, 1258 n.3 (S.D.N.Y. 1983).
RELATED SHELLOW MATERIALS:
See also THE SHELLOW COLLECTION: Conspiracy.
See also THE SHELLOW COLLECTION: Drugs, Controlled Substances: Conspiracy.
RELATED NCJIC MATERIALS:
See NCJIC Chapter 83: Conspiracy.
See NCJIC 83.3.6 [Defendant's Membership In Conspiracy: Defense Theories].
THE SHELLOW COLLECTION
Jury Instructions By James M. Shellow of Wisconsin
25. Conspiracy: Unlawful Acts Alone Not Sufficient
ALERT: Carefully review the Caveats and Disclaimers before using these materials.
SAMPLE INSTRUCTION # 1:
[The essential elements of the offense of conspiracy are intent and agreement.] Unlawful acts of an individual, no matter how numerous, do not constitute a conspiracy, unless it appears that the mind of the person committing such acts had previously met with another, and agreed upon a common purpose contemplating something unlawful either as the final object of the agreement or as a means of accomplishing it. Therefore, even if you believe from the evidence that unlawful acts were committed by someone, still, unless it is proved beyond a reasonable doubt by all of the evidence that the defendant had the intent and came to an agreement which resulted in the acts charged in the indictment, you must find the defendant was not a member of a conspiracy.
CASES WHERE THE ABOVE INSTRUCTION WAS GIVEN:
United States v. James E. Johnson, Case No. 97-CR-211 (E.D. Wis. 1998); United States v. Napue, No. 84-CR-155 (N.D. Ill. 1984) [bracketed material omitted]; United States v. Stillman, No. 80-133-Erie (W.D. Pa. 1981); United States v. Linton, No. CR-R-80-24-ECR (D. Nev. 1981).
SAMPLE INSTRUCTION # 2:
The essence of conspiracy is the intent and the agreement; unlawful acts of individuals, no matter how numerous, is not a conspiracy, unless it appears that the minds of the persons committing such acts had previously met and agreed upon a common purpose contemplating something unlawful, either as the final object of the agreement or as a means of accomplishing it. Therefore, even if you believe from the evidence that unlawful acts were committed by some persons, still, unless it is proved beyond a reasonable doubt by all of the evidence that a defendant had the intent and came to an agreement which resulted in the acts charged in the indictment, you must find that defendant was not a member of a conspiracy.
CASES WHERE THE ABOVE INSTRUCTION WAS GIVEN:
United States v. Stillman, No. 80-133-Erie (W.D. Pa. 1981).
RELATED SHELLOW MATERIALS:
See also THE SHELLOW COLLECTION: Conspiracy.
See also THE SHELLOW COLLECTION: Drugs, Controlled Substances: Conspiracy.
RELATED NCJIC MATERIALS:
See NCJIC 64.2 [Accomplice Liability: Mere Presence Insufficient].
See NCJIC Chapter 83: Conspiracy.
See NCJIC 83.3.6 [Defendant's Membership In Conspiracy: Defense Theories].
THE SHELLOW COLLECTION
Jury Instructions By James M. Shellow of Wisconsin
26. Conspiracy: Mere Suspicion Or Acquiescence Insufficient
ALERT: Carefully review the Caveats and Disclaimers before using these materials.
SAMPLE INSTRUCTION:
In order for a jury to convict a defendant for being part of a conspiratorial agreement, there must be more than suspicion, more than knowledge, acquiescence, carelessness, indifference, or lack of concern.
AUTHORITY:
United States v. Townsend, 924 F.2d 1385, 1390-95 (7th Cir. 1991).
RELATED SHELLOW MATERIALS:
See also THE SHELLOW COLLECTION: Conspiracy.
See also THE SHELLOW COLLECTION: Drugs, Controlled Substances: Conspiracy.
RELATED NCJIC MATERIALS:
See NCJIC 64.2 [Accomplice Liability: Mere Presence Insufficient].
See NCJIC Chapter 83: Conspiracy.
See NCJIC 83.3.6 [Defendant's Membership In Conspiracy: Defense Theories].
THE SHELLOW COLLECTION
Jury Instructions By James M. Shellow of Wisconsin
27. Willing Aid To Conspiracy Not Proof Of Membership
ALERT: Carefully review the Caveats and Disclaimers before using these materials.
SAMPLE INSTRUCTION # 1:
The essence of conspiracy is proof of the conspiratorial agreement. One without knowledge of a conspiracy may aid and abet a member of a conspiracy without being a member of the conspiracy himself. Thus, a defendant may willingly aid a criminal act and be liable as an aider and abetter but not be liable for conspiracy, which requires knowledge of and voluntary participation in an agreement to do an illegal act. [As a matter of law, aiding and abetting the commission of a crime and conspiracy to commit that crime are separate and distinct offenses.]
AUTHORITY:
United States v. Bright, 630 F.2d 804 (5th Cir. 1980).
CASES WHERE THE ABOVE INSTRUCTION WAS GIVEN:
United States v. Linton, No. CR-R-80-24-ECR (D.C. Nev. 1981) [bracketed areas deleted].
9225A
SAMPLE INSTRUCTION # 2:
The essence of conspiracy is proof of the conspirational agreement. One may aid and abet a member of a conspiracy without being a member of the conspiracy himself. Thus, a defendant may willingly aid a criminal act and be liable as an aider and abetter, but not be liable for conspiracy, which requires knowledge of, and voluntary participation in an agreement to do an illegal act. As a matter of law, aiding and abetting the commission of a crime and conspiracy to commit that crime are separate and distinct offenses.
AUTHORITY:
United States v. Bright, 630 F.2d 804 (5th Cir. 1980).
RELATED SHELLOW MATERIALS:
See also THE SHELLOW COLLECTION: Conspiracy.
See also THE SHELLOW COLLECTION: Drugs, Controlled Substances: Conspiracy.
RELATED NCJIC MATERIALS:
See NCJIC 64.2 [Accomplice Liability: Mere Presence Insufficient].
See NCJIC Chapter 83: Conspiracy.
See NCJIC 83.3.6 [Defendant's Membership In Conspiracy: Defense Theories].
THE SHELLOW COLLECTION
Jury Instructions By James M. Shellow of Wisconsin
28. Loan To Conspirator Not Enough To Prove Membership
ALERT: Carefully review the Caveats and Disclaimers before using these materials.
SAMPLE INSTRUCTION:
The mere fact that __________ (name of defendant) loaned _______ (amount of money) to __________ (name of third party), knowing that __________ (name of third party) was in the business of _________ (type of conspiracy e.g., buying and selling drugs), is not sufficient to convict __________ (name of defendant) of being a member of __________’s (name of third party) conspiracy.
AUTHORITIES:
United States v. United States Gypsum Company, 438 U.S. 422, 435 (1978).
RELATED SHELLOW MATERIALS:
See also THE SHELLOW COLLECTION: Conspiracy.
See also THE SHELLOW COLLECTION: Drugs, Controlled Substances: Conspiracy.
RELATED NCJIC MATERIALS:
See NCJIC 64.2 [Accomplice Liability: Mere Presence Insufficient].
See NCJIC Chapter 83: Conspiracy.
See NCJIC 83.3.6 [Defendant's Membership In Conspiracy: Defense Theories].
THE SHELLOW COLLECTION
Jury Instructions By James M. Shellow of Wisconsin
29. Mere Buyer-Seller Relationship Is Not Conspiracy
See THE SHELLOW COLLECTION: Drug Conspiracy: Mere Buyer-Seller Relationship Is Not Conspiracy.
THE SHELLOW COLLECTION
Jury Instructions By James M. Shellow of Wisconsin
30. Mere Cooperation Of Seller And Buyer Is Not Sufficient
See THE SHELLOW COLLECTION: Drug Conspiracy: Mere Cooperation Of Seller And Buyer Is Not Sufficient.
THE SHELLOW COLLECTION
Jury Instructions By James M. Shellow of Wisconsin
31. Buyer Seller: Mere Act Of Sale Not Proof Of Conspiracy
See THE SHELLOW COLLECTION: Drug Conspiracy: Buyer Seller: Mere Act Of Sale Not Proof Of Conspiracy.
THE SHELLOW COLLECTION
Jury Instructions By James M. Shellow of Wisconsin
32. Conspiracy: Mere Knowledge Of Buyer’s Intent To Resell Not Sufficient
See THE SHELLOW COLLECTION: Drug Conspiracy: Conspiracy: Mere Knowledge Of Buyer’s Intent To Resell Not Sufficient.
THE SHELLOW COLLECTION
Jury Instructions By James M. Shellow of Wisconsin
33. Participation In Conspiracy Ends With Arrest
ALERT: Carefully review the Caveats and Disclaimers before using these materials.
SAMPLE INSTRUCTION:
The crime of conspiracy requires an agreement between two or more persons to commit an unlawful act. There can be no true criminal agreement if an individual conspires to violate the law with only one other person and that person is a police officer, government agent or informer secretly acting in an undercover capacity on behalf of a law enforcement agency.
Thus, you cannot convict [defendant] of conspiracy even if you find beyond a reasonable doubt that he conspired with __________ (name of third party) after __________ (name of third party) was arrested, unless you also are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the prosecution has also proven that this defendant agreed to commit the particular crime charged either with __________ (name of third party) prior to his arrest or with at least one other alleged co-conspirator besides __________ (name of third party).
AUTHORITIES:
United States v. Escobar de Bright, 742 F.2d 1196, 11981200 (9th Cir. 1984); United States v. Moss, 591 F.2d 428, 434 n.8 (8th Cir. 1979); United States v. Chase, 372 F.2d 453, 459 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 387 U.S. 907 (1967); Sears v. United States, 343 F.2d 139, 142 (5th Cir. 1965); United States v. Way, 8 F.2d 429 (N.D. Ga. 1925).
RELATED SHELLOW MATERIALS:
See also THE SHELLOW COLLECTION: Conspiracy.
See also THE SHELLOW COLLECTION: Drugs, Controlled Substances: Conspiracy.
RELATED NCJIC MATERIALS:
See NCJIC Chapter 83: Conspiracy.
See NCJIC 83.3.6 [Defendant's Membership In Conspiracy: Defense Theories].