http://www.oyez.org/issues/criminal-procedure/conspiracy/ U.S. Supreme Court Cases, 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>Tommy L. Rutledge was found guilty of conspiracy to distribute controlled substances and of conducting a continuing criminal enterprise. The District Court convicted Rutledge on both counts. It sentenced him to life imprisonment without possible release on each count. The sentences were to be served concurrently. The Court of Appeals affirmed. It rejected Rutledge's argument that his convictions and concurrent life sentences punished him twice for the same offense.</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>In 1997, police stopped a truck in Nevada and seized the illegal drugs that it was carrying. With the help of the truck drivers, the police set up a sting. Francisco Jimenez Recio and Adrian Lopez-Meza came for the truck and were subsequently arrested. A jury convicted Jimenez Recio and Lopez-Meza of conspiracy, but the trial judge ordered a new trial under Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals precedent that held a conspiracy terminates when "'there is affirmative evidence of...defeat of the object of the conspiracy.'" In other words, the federal government could not prosecute the drug conspiracy defendants unless they had joined the conspiracy before the government seized the drugs. The new jury convicted the two men once again. In reversing, the Ninth Circuit held that the evidence presented at the second trial was insufficient to show that Jimenez Recio and Lopez-Meza had joined the conspiracy before the drug seizure.</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>Federal district courts convicted David Whitfield and Haywood Hall of conspiracy to commit money laundering. They appealed and argued the federal money laundering law required the jury to have found proof of an "overt act" furthering the conspiracy. The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected this argument, reasoning that the law lacked any language requiring proof of an overt act. Other federal appeals courts had ruled the law did require an overt act.</p></p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2004/2004_03_1293/