http://www.oyez.org/issues/criminal-procedure/conspiracy/ U.S. Supreme Court Decisions, presented by The Oyez Project (www.oyez.org) en-us <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1973/1973_73_346/ <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1950-1959/1956/1956_183/ <p>Can a criminal be given concurrent life sentences for conspiring to distribute drugs and operating a continuing criminal enterprise?</p><p>No. In a unanimous decision, announced by Justice John Paul Stevens, the Court ruled one of the two sentences must be dropped. Both of the offenses were based on the same criminal act. Justice Stevens wrote, "A guilty verdict on a (continuing criminal enterprise) charge necessarily includes a finding that the defendant also participated in a conspiracy."</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1995/1995_94_8769/ <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1950-1959/1959/1959_14/ <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1974/1974_73_1123/ <p>Is the Ninth Circuit rule -- that a conspiracy ends automatically when the object of the conspiracy becomes impossible to achieve -- valid?</p><p>No. In a 9-0 opinion delivered by Justice Stephen G. Breyer, the Court held that a conspiracy does not automatically terminate simply because the federal government has defeated its object, such that Ninth Circuit's conspiracy-termination law is erroneous. Justice Breyer stated that the Ninth Circuit's rule is inconsistent with basic conspiracy law and that the agreement to commit an unlawful act is "'a distinct evil,'" which "'may exist and be punished whether or not the substantive crime ensues.'" Justice John Paul Stevens filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2002/2002_01_1184/ <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1994/1994_93_981/ <p><p>Did a conviction for conspiracy to commit money laundering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1956(h), require proof of an overt act furthering the conspiracy?</p></p><p><p>No. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor delivered the Court's unanimous ruling that because the federal money laundering law's text did not expressly make committing an overt act an element of the conspiracy offense, the government did not need to prove such an act.</p></p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2004/2004_03_1293/