You are here

Home » Criminal Law » Inchoate Offenses » Conspiracy

Federal RICO

17 February, 2016 - 11:05
Available under Creative Commons-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

In response to an increase in organized crime, the federal government enacted the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act (RICO) (18U.S.C.§§1961-1968). RICO provides extensive criminal penalties and also a civil cause of action for organized crime and includes all offenses that are criminal under state or federal law. Although RICO was originally intended to focus on sophisticated criminal businesses such as loan sharking, mafia, and high-stakes gambling operations, 1 its modern application is much broader and encompasses many white-collar crimes and small-time conspiracies. A criminal organization always involves more than one member, and at the very least rudimentary planning, so conspiracy is a common RICO charge and is often easier to prove than a completed criminal offense. Recently, RICO has been criticized as being overused and applied in a manner inconsistent with its original purpose, especially when it targets smaller, low-member criminal “organizations.” Some examples of highly publicized RICO defendants are Hell’s Angels, 2 Catholic priests in sex abuse cases, 3 and Major League Baseball. 4

Table 8.1 Comparison of Conspiracy and Accomplice Liability

Type of Liability

Criminal Act

Criminal Intent

Conspiracy

Agreement to commit a crime, false criminal indictment, false lawsuit, or felony; some jurisdictions require an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy

Specific intent or purposely to agree to commit the specified offense(s)

Accomplice

Aid, assist commission of a crime

Specific intent or purposely or general intent or knowingly, depending on the jurisdiction

 
media/image7.png
Figure 8.7 Diagram of Conspiracy 
 

KEY TAKEAWAYS

  • Conspiracy is an inchoate crime because the defendants might never complete the offense that is the conspiracy’s object.
  • The criminal act element required for conspiracy is an agreement to commit any crime, commit a felony, falsely indict another for a crime, or falsely maintain any lawsuit, depending on the jurisdiction.
  • The overt act required for conspiracy can be preparatory activity; the criminal act element required for attempt must be more than mere preparation.
  • The criminal intent element required for conspiracy is specific intent or purposely to agree to commit the offense that is the conspiracy’s object.
  • The acquittal of or failure to prosecute one coconspirator does not prohibit the prosecution of other coconspirators in some jurisdictions.
  • A coconspirator does not need to know every other coconspirator; as long as a coconspirator is aware that there are other members, he or she can be criminally responsible for conspiracy.
  • A wheel conspiracy connects all members to one central member. A chain conspiracy interconnects the members in a linear fashion.
  • The Pinkerton rule holds conspiracy members criminally responsible for e very foreseeable crime committed in furtherance of the conspiracy.
  • Wharton’s rule could create a judicial presumption that a defendant cannot be criminally responsible for conspiracy and the crime that is its object if the conspiracy has only two members, and the crime that is its object requires two defendants.
  • Renunciation is an affirmative defense to conspiracy in some jurisdictions if the defendant voluntarily and completely renounces the conspiracy and thwarts the crime that is its object.
  • Generally, conspiracy does not merge like attempt; a defendant can be convicted of conspiracy and the crime conspired.
  • Some jurisdictions grade conspiracy the same as the conspired offense; other jurisdictions grade conspiracy lower than the conspired offense. It is not unconstitutional to grade conspiracy higher than the offense that is its object.
  • Federal RICO is a statute that is designed to punish organized crime.

EXERCISES

Answer the following questions. Check your answers using the answer key at the end of the chapter.

  1. Gail and Roger conspire to commit a misdemeanor. In Gail and Roger’s state, conspiracy is punishable as a felony. Can Gail and Roger be convicted of a felony for conspiring to commit a misdemeanor? Why or why not?
  2. Read Statev. Blackmer, 816 A.2d 1014 (2003). In Blackmer, the defendant appealed his conviction for conspiracy to possess marijuana with intent to sell because the individual with whom he was conspiring was a p olice decoy who d id not have conspiracy intent.
  3. Did the Supreme Court of New Hampshire uphold the defendant’s conviction? The case is available at this link: http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10340846332108789820&q=State+v.+Blackmer&hl=en&as_sdt=2,5%E2%80%8B
  4. Read Common wealth v.Roux, 350 A.2d 867 (1976). In Roux, the defendant was convicted of murder and conspiracy to commit murder after a barroom brawl resulted in a victim’s death. The defendant and others beat the victim with their fists. Thereafter the criminal actor took a knife from a defendant who then walked away. The criminal actor stabbed the victim, who died as a result. The defendant who walked away claimed that he “abandoned” the conspiracy by leaving before the stabbing, and this should be an affirmative defense to the conspiracy and murder charges. Did the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania uphold the defendant’s convictions? The case is available at this link: http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1692554406000599210&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr%E2%80%8B

LAW AND ETHICS : THE HAN MURDER CONSPIRACY

Did the Coconspirators Intend to Commit Murder?

Read Peoplev. Han, 78 Cal. App. 4th 797 (2000). The case is available at this link: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/californiastatecases/g023433.pdf
In Han, a lurid California case involving twins, three defendants were convicted of burglary, false imprisonment, and conspiracy to commit murder. 5 Two of the codefendants appealed on the grounds that the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict of conspiracy to commit murder. The codefendants claimed that the onlydirect evidence of intent to commit murder were statements made by the defendant Jeen Han before the conspiracy was formed, and defendant Han could not conspire with herself.
The defendant Jeen Han and her twin sister Sunny had a long history of violence against each other. 6 Defendant Han became enraged when Sunny pressed charges against her for theft. Testimonial evidence presented at trial showed that she expressed the intent to kill her twin beforeany conspiracy was formed. 7 She actively sought out individuals to help her with her sister’s murder. 8 Thereafter, she met up with her teenaged cousin and a friend, the other two codefendants. The three broke into Sunny
Han’s apartment, tied up Sunny and her roommate at gunpoint and placed them in the bathtub, and then ransacked Sunny’s purse. Receipts produced at trial indicated a purchase of garbage bags, twine, utility tape, and Pine Sol previous to the incident. The Court of Appeal of California held that although circumstantial, the evidence supported the verdict. The court reasoned that the purchase of the twine, garbage bags, utility tape, and Pine Sol, combined with the actions of the defendants in breaking into the apartment, tying up the two roommates at gunpoint, and putting them in the bathtub, could be interpreted as circumstantial evidence of intent to kill, and the trier of fact did not err in making that conclusion. 9

  1. Do you think it is ethical to impute Jeen Han’s intent to murder her twin to the two other coconspirators, based on the circumstantial evidence presented at trial?

Check your answer using the answer key at the end of the chapter.

 

  • 2297 reads