Supreme Court Revives Broad Definition of Conspiracy
NewsMax.com Wires
Wednesday, Jan. 22, 2003
WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court, in a major victory for prosecutors, ruled
Tuesday that a criminal conspiracy does not end simply because its purpose
has been frustrated by the government.
The ruling overturns a decision by a federal appeals court.
Its main effect will be to give prosecutors and law enforcement officers
more leeway against potential conspiracies, whether their purpose is
criminal or spreading terror.
For instance, if government agents early in an investigation defeat the
object of a conspiracy to blow up a federal building, can prosecutors still
charge those who join the conspiracy later, but participate in no other crime?
Tuesday's Supreme Court decision means they can.
The underlying case that brought the decision involves a drug investigation.
On Nov. 18, 1997, a Nevada police officer stopped a northbound flatbed
truck occupied by Manuel Sotelo and Ramiro Arce. The truck turned out to be
carrying 369 pounds of marijuana and nearly 15 pounds of cocaine. Police
placed a street value of between $10 million and $12 million.
The men told police they were supposed to drive the truck to Nampa, Idaho,
and leave it at a mall. Arce agreed to cooperate with a police sting.
Once officers had parked the truck at the Nampa mall, Arce called an
Arizona pager number.
When a caller returned the page, Arce told him the truck's location and was
told the caller would send "a muchacho to come and get the truck." Three
hours later, Francisco Jimenez Recio and Adrian Lopez-Meza drove up to the
parked truck.
Recio got out of the car and into the truck. He and Lopez-Meza drove west
on different back roads before police decided to stop them.
A federal grand jury in Idaho indicted the two men for conspiracy to
possess with intent to distribute cocaine and marijuana, and with
conspiring to possess cocaine and marijuana.
Both men were found guilty on both counts. A federal judge refused motions
that the men be acquitted because of supposed lack of evidence.
Eventually, a divided appeals court panel reversed the judge. It ruled 2-1
that the government had presented no evidence the two men were involved in
a conspiracy before the drugs were seized in Nevada.
The panel majority said the men appeared to have been hired at the last
minute, and downplayed evidence that both had pagers when they were arrested.
When the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit refused to hear
the case, the Justice Department asked for Supreme Court review.
The department pointed to a 1957 Supreme Court precedent that said a
conspiracy agreement "determines the duration of the conspiracy." As long
as the agreement lasts, the department said, the conspiracy lasts.
The appeals court ruling "discourages legitimate law enforcement methods
that can be of vital importance not only in drug cases, but also in violent
crime, terrorism and other contexts in which prosecution of the
conspirators and frustration of their goals are both critical objectives."
After hearing argument last November, the Supreme Court on Tuesday agreed
with the Justice Department.
Writing for a near-unanimous court, Justice Stephen Breyer said the Supreme
Court had repeatedly said the that the essence of a conspiracy is "an
agreement to commit an unlawful act."
Citing a 1997 precedent, Breyer said that the agreement itself "is a
'distinct evil,' which 'may exist and be punished whether or not the
substantive crime ensues.'"
Justice John Paul Stevens dissented, but only in part and only for
technical reasons. Stevens said prosecutors should have objected earlier to
erroneous jury instructions from the judge.
Tuesday's decision reverses the appeals court. Because the two men's case
had other elements not considered by the Supreme Court, the justices sent
the case back down for a rehearing.
(01-1184, United States of America vs. Recio and Lopez-Meza.)
