Statutes Requiring an Overt Act
o An overt act manifests that the
conspiracy is at work and is neither a project still resting solely in mind nor
a fully completed operation no longer in existence
o
Chain v. Wheel Conspiracies
§
Totally
unhelpful
§
Apply
the following two part test (applied to each individual)
·
1-
Ask whether there is knowledge of the existence of the others, but not
necessarily their precise identities
·
2-
Belief that there is a community of interest beyond the direct interaction
§
“It
taxes credulity” – it is not believable that all of these things would have
happened without the existence of an agreement
o
Agreement
with a Member of a Protected Class
§
If
only two parties originally charged with conspiracy and one has a valid
immunity defense, then the conspiracy charge must be dismissed as well because
of the plurality rule
o
WHARTON’S RULE – If a substantive crime is defined so as to necessarily
to requires two or more people, then the prosecution must be brought for the
substantive offense, and not for the conspiracy
§
The
law already factors in the danger that comes from group criminality
·
Adultery,
Incest, Bigamy, Bribery, Dueling
§
If
you have more than the minimum number required, then you’re outside of
Wharton’s rule
·
Hypo
– A and B want to commit adultery and C provides a room…
o Wharton’s Rule does not apply
o Pinkerton can apply
o
Unilateral
Conspiracy
§
If
a person agrees with another….
·
You
still have the theoretical danger of group criminality, b/c the person believes
there is group support
o
In
a bilateral jurisdiction, you cannot commit the crime of conspiracy alone
§
If
A enters into an agreement with B, but B is faking = NO CRIME
§
If
A enters into an agreement with B, but B is an undercover cop = NO CRIME
§
If
A enters into an agreement with B, but B does not have the mental capacity to
agree = NO CRIME
Post a Comment