The Waterbury Democrat., 1939-08-15

1 @fNfeefSs 1~NNNlSr stand 1t, claims that although the various defendants may have oper- ated in separate groups they, al were in priyity with each other through the central group made ur of such men, as Hayes, Leary, Kelly Olsen, Kingsley and perhaps some others. The states contention is tha, this group constituted the branches but that all together they constitu- ted the tree, and thereby they were all members of the same single con- spiracy. Some, of the, defendants, on the, other hand, contend that ii there was any conspiracy at all there were number of little conspiracies each having no connection or priyity with the others. If you find the facts to be as the defendants claim, each of the defendants who was not a party to the main conspiracy must be found not guilty because even though they might have been party to a. separate small conspiracy, if that group was not in priyity with any other group, the state has not proved that they were members of the single unified conspiracy which 1t has charged in the information If, on the other hand, you find the facts to be as the state claims, namely that there was a central group which combined to cheat and defraud the City of Waterbury by unlawful means and that, from time to time, other persons, either indi- vidually or in groups, joined with them to accomplish that purpose by those unlawful means and that all of the original group and those persons who joined with them work ed in priyity with each other, then you have found that all of those persons were members of 8 single conspiracy.
 | Single or Separate
 In passing on the questions as to whether we have, here one single conspiracy or group of separate distinct conspiracies, you must un- derstand that the mere fact, if it is a fact alone, that one man or one group of men participated in all of the acts by which the City was de-. frauded, if you find that 1t was de- frauded, is not sufficient. In the same way, 1t is not sufficient for the State to prove that all of the pur- poses. accomplished were similar purposes. The State must prove that there was a group of men who corn- bined for the same purpose, that is in the main to get money by unlaw- full and fraudulent means out of the city, and that that group continued to operate through the years, from time to time using others to assist in accomplishing the purpose. It is not essential to the States case that 1t appear that all the members of the group knew all of the other members or knew all that they were doing. All that is necessary in this conenction Is that the evidence show that each of those whom you find were members of the conspir- acy that was working toward the accomplishment of the same common ultimate purpose and knew not only about his own part but also knew that some of the others had parts in the fur therance of the conspiracy. In other words, it is essential to the States case that you be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the conspir- acy which 1t has proved is single conspiracy, that is that although 1t may have operated in many differ ent channels and through the ac- tivities of many different persons, nevertheless, 1t was a single group of men acting in unity and with privity to accomplish the same pur- pose rather than similar but dif- ferent purposes.
 Not Guilty
 It may be that you will find that as regard some or all of these de- fendants the State has failed to prove that they combined to do any unlawful act. If so as regards those defendants of course your verdict must be not guilty. It may be that, as regards some of the defendants you will find that they did some un- lawful act or even that they formed a small combination to do an unlaw- full act, but that in doing so they did not act in privity with any of the other groups if any. Is so, you must find them not guilty because even though they may have done an lln- lawful act or have formed 8 con- spiracy in a separate group they are not members of the single con- spiracy which is charged in the in- formation. But, if you find that single combination was formed for the purpose of defrauding the City of Waterbury by the unlawful means charged in the information and find as regards any defendant that he, knowing of the existence of the com- bination, intentionally acted in priv ity with 1t either by himself or with small group to do any act which was in furtherance of the purpose of the conspiracy, then you have found that he became member of the conspiracy charged and Is liable as such.
 May Withdraw
 Before I get off this discussion of what may constitute membership in 8 conspiracy, I ought to point out that after a person has become a member 1t is possible for him to withdraw from the confederation. Of course, if a person once becomes a member of 8 conspiracy he is guilty of the crime of conspiracy and the fact that he later with draws does not remove his guilt Accordingly. the only practical ap- plication which l can see that this principle that a conspirator may withdraw from the conspiracy has is this: AS will point out later on in this charge, the Statute of Limi- tations bars all prosecution for the crime of conspiracy after the five years next after the crime has been committed. Now if person is a member of a conspiracy and with draws therefrom. he ceases to be committing the crime as of the date of his withdrawal and unless the prosecution Is started against him ' xs,ttx.is. %1n <ix,a xyaar, xxaxxk 1e&o.