What is the test for overturning a conviction of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice?

Thus, the jury had to find that Singh participated in the charged conspiracy; if not, "even though [Singh] may have been a member of some other conspiracy," the jury was instructed to return a not guilty verdict. It was the jury that had to decide whether a conspiracy or multiple conspiracies existed, and the courts jury instruction adequately presented this theory. See United States v. Loya , 807 F.2d 1483, 149293 (9th Cir. 1987).

Singh also argues that there was insufficient evidence of a single conspiracy to sustain his conviction. Instead, he claims that the government proved only a "rimless conspiracy" under which his conviction could not stand. "Whether a single conspiracy has been proved is a question of the sufficiency of the evidence," and we review such claims de novo. United States v. Fernandez , 388 F.3d 1199, 1226 (9th Cir. 2004), as amended , 425 F.3d 1248 (9th Cir. 2005).

To determine whether a single conspiracy or multiple conspiracies have been proven, we employ the following test:

Id. (quoting United States v. Duran , 189 F.3d 1071, 1080 (9th Cir. 1999) ). "[I]f the indictment alleges a single conspiracy, but the evidence at trial establishes only that there were multiple unrelated conspiracies, there is insufficient evidence to support the conviction on the crime charged, and the affected conviction must be reversed." Id. at 122627. Nonetheless, "[a] single conspiracy may involve several subagreements or subgroups of conspirators." United States v. Bibbero , 749 F.2d 581, 587 (9th Cir. 1984).