How have instructions been interpreted in the context of multiple conspiracies?

MultiRegion, United States of America

The following excerpt is from U.S. v. Eubanks, 591 F.2d 513 (9th Cir. 1979):

The requested instructions, as phrased, were not accurate statements of law. Instruction No. 20 was defective because the existence of other conspiracies would not preclude the jury from finding that defendants were involved in the overall conspiracy charged in the indictment. United States v. Perry, 550 F.2d 524, 533 (9th Cir. 1977) ("the jury could find that there were several different agreements involving the defendants, all of which would then connect the defendants to the general overall conspiracy as charged in the indictment"). Instruction No. 21 was incomplete. It is axiomatic that if the evidence did not show "the single alleged conspiracy in the Indictment," then appellants could not be convicted of that particular conspiracy. But this does not imply that appellants could not be convicted of any conspiracy under the indictment because of a variance between the indictment's allegations and the evidence. In United States v. Griffin, 464 F.2d 1352 (9th Cir. 1972), we held that defendants charged with participation in a single conspiracy could be convicted of separate conspiracies, if the jury was cautioned not to consider evidence admitted against members of other conspiracies in considering the guilt of individual defendants.

The trial judge properly refused appellants' instructions, but he should not have ignored the possibility that the jury could have found multiple conspiracies. If it is possible under the evidence for the jury to find that multiple conspiracies existed, then the court should instruct the jury on the issue. United States v. Perry, 550 F.2d 524, 533 (9th Cir. 1977). When the possibility of a variance between the indictment and the trial proof appears, the jury should also be given a limiting instruction about the procedure for considering evidence of multiple conspiracies. United States v. Griffin, 464 F.2d 1352, 1357 (9th Cir. 1972); United States v. Varelli, 407 F.2d 735, 746 (7th Cir. 1969). The evidence here was sufficient to support the jury's finding that a single conspiracy had occurred; but it was also sufficient to warrant a jury instruction on the possibility of finding multiple conspiracies. 4 Based on the evidence produced at trial, the jury could have found that multiple conspiracies had taken place, rather than the single conspiracy charged in the indictment. Thus the trial judge should have instructed the jury on the multiple conspiracy issue.

Other Questions


How has the US Supreme Court interpreted the instruction that a finding of conspiracy against a defendant does not mandate acquittal of a defendant where there is evidence of other conspiracies? (MultiRegion, United States of America)
How have courts interpreted interpretative regulations in the context of the communications industry? (MultiRegion, United States of America)
How have instructions been interpreted in the context of reasonable doubt? (MultiRegion, United States of America)
Is there a single conspiracy as charged in the indictment or multiple conspiracies? (MultiRegion, United States of America)
How have the courts interpreted agency interpretation in the context of national security legislation? (MultiRegion, United States of America)
What is the proper multiple conspiracies instruction in a civil case? (MultiRegion, United States of America)
How have courts interpreted federal legislation in the context of constitutional interpretation? (MultiRegion, United States of America)
In a sexual assault case, how have the jury instructions been interpreted in the context of sexual assault cases? (MultiRegion, United States of America)
How have instructions been interpreted in the context of sexual assault cases? (MultiRegion, United States of America)
What is the test for interpreting the meaning of a statute in the context of a tortfeasor's interpretation? (MultiRegion, United States of America)
X



Alexi white


"The most advanced legal research software ever built."

Trusted by top litigators from across North America.