A conspiracy is an agreement between two or more individuals to break the law at some point in the not so distant future. In some jurisdictions, it is required that the parties who have formed the agreement have done some overt act in furtherance of their agreement. While many conspiracies are small, there is no limit on the number of individuals who can be charged with participating in the conspiracy.
The United States has adopted a rule on conspiracy that is somewhat broad. Here, a conspiracy is an agreement of two or more people to commit a crime or to accomplish a legal end through illegal actions. As an example of committing a crime to accomplish a legal end, agreeing to hold up a liquor store in an effort to take funds to give to a charity does not make holding up a liquor store legal, despite the fact that giving money to charity is not only legal but encouraged.
There is a misconception that in order for a conspiracy to be a conspiracy, it must have been planned in secret. While many of this type of crime are planned in secret, out of necessity, there are many conspiracies formed not in secret. Depending on the conspiracy, the level of secrecy required varies. Obviously, individuals planning a major event will use more secrecy than those that have conspired to turn stop signs upside down.
As for intent, the rules of conspiracy do not require that the prosecution show any specific intent by the named defendants to injure any specific person to establish that there was an illegal agreement in place. Instead of specific intent, the law usually only requires that the conspirators agree to engage in a certain illegal act. The intent for this crime is generally referred to as a "general intent" to violate the law.
Prosecutors in general like charging individuals and groups with conspiracy. They like it because, unlike accomplice liability, they don't have to prove the particular role of a specific conspirator. The person is guilty of the conspiracy because he or she entered into an agreement to commit some illegal act. For example, if two people decide to enter into an agreement to kill a third person, and this agreement can be proven, and the third person is actually killed, as a result of either conspirator, the prosecutor doesn't have to prove with specificity which of the conspirators pulled the trigger when the crime was committed. If the prosecutor had to prove who actually pulled the trigger, and both conspirators had handled the gun and left fingerprints, then both conspirators could demand an acquittal since the prosecutor would be unable to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, which conspirator pulled the trigger and which one merely checked the clip.
To be convicted of a conspiracy, a prosecutor must prove that a) the conspirators actually conspired to commit a crime and that b) the crime was committed by an individual involved in the conspiracy.
Austin criminal defense attorney Ian Inglis is dedicated to giving each of his clients an opportunity to show that they are indeed innocent of whatever charges levied against them.
Joseph Devine
No comments:
Post a Comment