The following excerpt is from United States v. Trudeau, 13-769-cr (2nd Cir. 2014):
to commit." U.S.S.G. 1B1.2(d). Application Note 4 of Section 1B1.2(d) instructs that "[p]articular care must be taken in applying subsection (d) because there are cases in which the verdict or plea does not establish which offense(s) was the object of the conspiracy." U.S.S.G. 1B1.2(d) cmt. n. 4 ("Note 4"). In such instances, the district court should apply subsection (d) to an object offense only if the district court, "were it sitting as a trier of fact, would convict the defendant of conspiring to commit that object offense." Id. In that event, the burden of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt. See United States v. Malpeso, 115 F.3d 155, 167-68 (2d Cir. 1997) (considering application of Note 4, formerly U.S.S.G. 1B1.2(d) cmt. n. 5).
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.