#17089 - Conspiracy Liability - Criminal Law

CONSPIRACY

Jump to ACTUS REUS // MENS REA // PINKERTON // RENUNCIATION + WITHDRAWAL

• Separate crime

• Two meanings (1) inchoate crime, aims at preparatory conduct (2) accessory liability: individuals in C liable for actions of others in the group

• Conspiracy is a continual offense - ends when objective is achieved or abandoned

• Policy for conspiracy liability

  • (1) Deters conspiracies from forming and people from joining

    • Group dynamics strengthen resolve, allow for efficiencies, and increase likelihood of crime

    • Groups allow for more crimes and more serious and complex crimes to be committed, liability - included crimes unrelated to original purpose of the group

    • Group dynamics decrease probability that individuals will depart from path of criminality

  • (2) deters careless behavior within a conspiracy

  • (3) if the target crime is difficult to prosecute, get the defendants on conspiracy

  • (4) help prosecutors to get co-conspirators to cooperate, give information, and turn on the others, in order to take down the leaders of the conspiracy

• (CONSPIRACY) Actus Reus (not much work)

  • Agreement with someone else to commit a crime

    • Can be express or implied

  • Sometimes jx require an overt act

    • But very minor act suffices (buy materials, set time and place over telephone)

  • How to infer agreement

    • Relationship between the parties (Vs. strangers)

    • Financial agreement (shared interest)

    • Same motive for agreement (vs. different motive)

    • Verbal agreement and exchange (vs. lack)

    • Circumstances that make it improbable that action would happen without prior agreement

    • Ex. Perry: conspiracy to allow sexual abuse

      • Court: not enough to infer

      • Dissent: Implied agreement bc family relationship, motivated by financial support of the assaulter, told same lie to detective, knew about sex offense status > must have agreed

    • (1) government argument: conduct not have happened without agreement

    • (2) defense argument: this was parallel conduct that was independent and did not require agreement

  • MPC: 5.03(1)

    • (a) agrees with other(s) that one or more of them will commit the crime or an attempt or solicitation

    • (b) agrees to aid with other(s) in the planning or commission or attempt or solicitation of the crime

  • MPC 5.03(5) requires overt act unless serious crime (1st/2nd degree felony)

• (CONSPIRACY) Mens Rea – does most of the work

  • Conduct: purpose

  • Result: purpose (cannot conspire to commit unintended crime)

  • SAME with MPC: MPC 5.03: "promoting or facilitating its commission"

    • Purpose = conduct

    • Purpose = result

    • Policy

      • Don't want knowledge standard (including willful blindness) because

        • Makes seller liable if they know materials sold are intended for crime

        • Restricts free market activity

        • Encourages sellers' discriminatory practices

          • Refusal to sell due to race, appearance, or other factors pointing to criminal tendencies

        • Since with conspiracy culpability attaches early on, want to make sure defendant is culpable

        • Higher penalties should have higher mens rea

    • How to infer intent for conduct

      • Lauria - charge of conspiring to allow prostitution

      • Lauria factors (outside of direct evidence):

      • (1) crime is serious (not misdemeanor, yes murder) - intent inferred from knowledge

        • If know about serious crime and don’t stop it, only explanation is that you wanted the crime to happen

      • (2) personal stake in crime, charges inflated rates

        • D: inflated rate for another reasonable purpose - ex. Insure against damages from explosion; smart economic bargaining by taking advantage of buyer's youth and inexperience and charge higher rate

      • (3) materials have no lawful/legit use

      • (4) quantity of materials have no lawful/legit use/demand

        • volume of business grossly disproportionate to any legitimate demand

        • sales for illegal use amount to a high proportion of the seller’s total business

      • D: market players are different from people joining conspiracy

• Pinkerton liability (dominant in federal system, some states) - conspiracy as accessory liability

  • RULE If someone joins a conspiracy and target crime occurs, not only responsible for conspiracy and target crime but also additional crimes committed by co-conspirators that are

    • (1) in furtherance of the conspiracy

      • Intent to further conspiracy is enough; a terrible judgment that actually harm or exposed the conspiracy counts

    • (2) reasonably foreseeable

      • Objective - Either foreseeable by a reasonable person or foreseeable by a reasonable person in the defendant's situation

  • Ex. Pinkerton: brothers conspire to defraud gov

  • Ex. State v. Bridges: conspiracy only to assault but co-conspirators, armed, kill to further conspiracy, reasonably foreseeable, so liable

  • Effect:

    • Allows charging of 3 separate crimes (conspiracy, target, additional)

    • Most often applied to sentences tied to drug quantities

      • Conspirator becomes responsible for quantities of others > long sentences

  • Advantages:

    • (1) deters formation and joining of conspiracies, thus deter the number of crimes, severity of crimes, that are created because of the efficiencies of the group dynamic

    • (2) disciplining effect within conspiracy - make sure people stick to the target crime

    • (3) broad liability makes it easy for prosecutors to threaten high sentences to extract cooperation/testimony from one co-conspirator to incriminate the others

      • Otherwise difficult to pierce through group dynamics and get to leaders

    • (4) increasingly sophisticated large organized crime - Pinkerton the only way to get to the top members

  • Disadvantages

    • (1) punishment is grossly disproportionate to conscious wrongdoing

    • (2) the deterrence effect is not strong in practice

      • People are not motivated by conspiracy liability in deciding whether to join a conspiracy, often young people who made a bad decision who is now responsible for other people's worse decisions

      • Low level conspirators cannot affect decisions of leaders

    • (3) in effect creates a negligence standard (only require reasonably foreeseable)

  • MPC rejects Pinkerton

    • Liability for crimes done by co-conspirators only if conditions for accomplice liability are met

  • Compare with luparello

    • Luparello is broader because not require in furtherance and agreement elements (but fewer jx use Luparello)

• Renunciation and withdrawal

  • Renunciation - if effective, absolves liability for the initial agreement

    • Cannot renounce in CL

    • MPC 5.03(6): to have aff defense of renunciation, after conspiring, (1) thwart the success of conspiracy AND (2) manifest complete and voluntary renunciation of criminal purpose

  • Withdrawal from conspiracy- if effective, absolves liability for subsequent crimes committed by the conspiracy but not initial agreement (unless effective renunciation) and target crime

    • CL/ Randall: must (1) communicate withdrawal to co-conspirators OR report activities to law enforcement

    • MPC 5.03(7): (1) communicates "abandonment" to co-conspirators OR inform law enforcement of existence of conspiracy and his participation

    • Advantage:

      • Want people to report what they know to law enforcement, or at least weaken the group through communicating the withdrawal, so that they are not continually emboldened by the person's perceived participation

      • Deters entering conspiracy in the first place

    • Disadvantage:

      • High burden to get out of conspiracy, safety concerns with reporting and communicating (retaliation, harm to the family)

      • Young people who made bad decision cannot get out easily

Summary: separate crime, P.A.P. + agreement(overt act) / continues until objectives achieved or abandoned