Opposites are true for unilateral crimes

o       Pinkerton v. United States – Brothers were moonshine manufacturers, and one brother was in prison – convicted of a different charge

§        Just because one Δ was in prison does not mean his role in the conspiracy is over.  Renunciation from a conspiracy must be VOLUNTARY

o       People v. Lauria – Δ ran a phone answering service that was used, with the Δ’s knowledge, by prostitutes to answer calls from clients

§        Court held that the Δ took no direct action to further, encourage, or direct the call girl activities of his codefendants and there are no circumstances from which his special interest in their activities can be inferred

o       United States v. Feola (Supp) – charged with an assault on a federal police officer during a drug sting

§        Court held that conspiracy to attempt to assault a federal officer was permissible even though Δ didn’t know the federal officer’s status.  Found intent to agree to commit an assault was present and as for it being a federal officer, the Δ takes the victim as he finds him

o       United States v. Alvarez (Supp) – Case dealing with the importation of over 110k pounds of marijuana from Columbia.  Nothing in the case specifically states that Alvarez planned to participate, other than a nod and a smile

§        Government is not required to prove knowledge of all of the details of a conspiracy, or each of its members to convict one member of involvement – provided that it can establish that he knew the essence of the conspiracy

o       Williams v. United States (Supp) – bootlegging case

§        “Yet when all these strands are considered together, and their interrelations and connections are considered, they form, we think a complete web, which was more than sufficient to take the jury to the question of a general conspiracy among the appellants.”

o       Kotteakos v. United States – Δ was filing, and helping people to file applications to defraud the government of subsidized housing funds

§        Δ was the hub, but each person involved was working individually in furtherance of their own goal. 

o       Blumenthal v. United States (Supp) –  Case of moonshiners where we have the question of one large conspiracy, or two smaller conspiracies between the manufacturers and distributors – and the distributors to retailers

§        Each salesman aided in selling only his part.  But he knew the lot to be sold was larger and thus that he was aiding in a larger plan.  He thus became a party to it and not merely to the integrating agreement.

o       United States v. Bruno – If Δ had knowledge or believed that his seller was selling him all that he possessed and had no reason to believe that there was a larger conspiracy, then he is only chargeable for the one conspiracy

§        However, if that is not the case, then he is considered on notice and can be held liable for part in larger conspiracy

o       Gebardi v. United States – Mann Act transportation, but the female is a protected class

§        If protected for the substantive crime under a statute or through diplomatic immunity, cannot be charged with the crime nor a conspiracy to commit that crime

EXCULPATION

·        Two Categories of Defenses

o       Justification – if successful, means complete acquittal (perfect defense when all elements are fulfilled)

o       Excuse – if successful, not acquitted, but less sever punishment is usually afforded

·        Classifications

o       Defenses involving protection from competing interests where society would justify crime in protection of something else

§        Self-Defense, Defense of Others

o       Defense to commit a crime to avoid harm

§        Necessity, Duress, Battered Woman Syndrome

o       Disproving existence of one or more elements of the crime charged

o       Defense of ignorance of the law

§        Mistake

o       Intoxication

o       Insanity