Cases by Issue - Conspiracy

Whitfield v. U.S.

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:47:22 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

03-1293

Petitioner

David Whitfield

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

Haywood Eudon Hall, aka Don Hall v. United States, No. 03-1294

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Opinion

543 U.S. 209 (2005)

Granted

Monday, June 21, 2004

Argued

Tuesday, November 30, 2004

Decided

Tuesday, January 11, 2005

Advocates

Jonathan L. Marcus (argued the cause for Respondent)

Sharon C. Samek (argued the cause for Petitioners)

Facts of the Case

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.

Question

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?

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for U.S., 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 18 U.S.C. 1956

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.

Rutledge v. United States

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:24:50 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

94-8769

Petitioner

Rutledge

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Opinion

517 U.S. 292 (1996)

Argued

Monday, November 27, 1995

Decided

Wednesday, March 27, 1996

Advocates

James A. Feldman (Argued the cause for the United States)

Barry Levenstam (Argued the cause for the petitioner)

Facts of the Case

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.

Question

Can a criminal be given concurrent life sentences for conspiring to distribute drugs and operating a continuing criminal enterprise?

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Rutledge, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 21 U.S.C. 848

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."

United States v. Shabani

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:15:28 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

93-981

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Shabani

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Opinion

513 U.S. 10 (1994)

Argued

Monday, October 3, 1994

Decided

Tuesday, November 1, 1994

Advocates

Dennis P. Riordan (on behalf of the Respondent)

Richard H. Seamon (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for United States, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 21 U.S.C. 846

None

Albernaz v. United States

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:28:31 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

79-1709

Petitioner

Albernaz et al.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

450 U.S. 333 (1981)

Argued

Monday, January 19, 1981

Decided

Monday, March 9, 1981

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for United States, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Double Jeopardy

None

United States v. Feola

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:33:11 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

73-1123

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Feola

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

420 U.S. 671 (1975)

Argued

Tuesday, November 19, 1974

Decided

Wednesday, March 19, 1975

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for United States, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 18 U.S.C. 371

None

Anderson v. United States

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:34:22 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

73-346

Petitioner

Anderson

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

417 U.S. 211 (1974)

Argued

Tuesday, March 19, 1974

Decided

Monday, June 3, 1974

Advocates

Lawrence G. Wallace (argued the cause for the United States)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for United States, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 18 U.S.C. 241

None

United States v. Dege

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:30:26 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Appellee

Dege

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

United States

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Decided By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Opinion

364 U.S. 51 (1960)

Argued

Tuesday, October 20, 1959

Decided

Monday, June 27, 1960

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for United States, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 18 U.S.C. 371

None

Grunewald v. United States

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:28:54 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

183

Petitioner

Grunewald

Respondent

United States

Consolidation

No. 184

No. 186

Heard By

Warren Court (1957-1958)

Decided By

Warren Court (1957-1958)

Opinion

353 U.S. 391 (1957)

Argued

April 3-4, 1957

Decided

Monday, May 27, 1957

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Grunewald, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None