The Waterbury Democrat., 1939-08-15


 In this cage. the defendants stand
 accused of the crime of conspiracy.
 It is, therefore, essential that I
 make plain to you what the crime
 of conspiracy is. A criminal con-
 spiracy is the confederation or combination of two or more per-
 cons to accomplish an unlawful purpose or a lawful purpose by un-
 lawful means. Let me repeat so that 1t will be fixed in your memory. A criminal conspiracy is the con- federation or combination of two or more persons either to accomplish en unlawful purpose or to accom- piish what may be a lawful purpose by unlawful means. Having this definition of the crime of conspir- acy in mind, before the state is en- titled to a verdict of guilty against him, 1t must prove two things. It
 must prove first, that he partici- pated in confederation or combi- nation with one or more of the other accused, as is charged in the information, and second, that the purpose of that combination was either to accomplish the unlawful purpose as charged or to accom- piish Q purpose which might have been lawful but by some of the un- lawful means as charged.
 (Combinat ation)-Now, little bit more in detail about the first ele- ment whic,, the state has to prove, that is the combination or--confed- eration: It is in the unlawful con- bination that the gist of the offense lies. The gist of the offense in the crime of conspiracy is not so much in the doing of the unlawful acts which the conspiracy was organ ized to accomplish but rather the formation of the combination be- tween two or more persons for the purpose of doing these unlawful acts: So 1t is that the crime of conspiracy is complete when the combination to commit unlawful acts is formed, and 1t is not neces- saYy to prove that the unlawful purposes of the combination were ever actually accomplished or that anything other than the formation of the combination was ever done toward accomplishing them.
 1 Agreement
 In order for two or more persons {, to be found guilty of the crime of conspiracy it is not necessary that it appear that there was a formal or even an express agreement among them to accomplish the un- lawful purpose. All that is necessary is to show that they acted in con- cert to accomplish the unlawful purpose, that is, that each did something toward accomplishing tho purpose knowing that the other or others were also working with him toward the same end. One does not become a member of conspir- acy simply because >he knows that combination for unlawful purposes has been formed by a group of other persons and does nothing about it-that is unless the law im- poses on him the duty to do some thing, and he deliberately refrains from doing that which the law re- quires in order to aid the conspir- acy. But if he does know that the combination exists and does do something in furtherance of 1t, he th9reby becomes a member of it Vand Is guilty of the crime of con- spiracy. In other words, any per- son who. takes part in the conspir- acy whether as a party to the agreement or by knowingly doing an act ia furtherance of the com- mon design Is liable as a conspira- tor.
 It is. of course, very rarely that the state is able to prove that the group of persons charged with con- spiracy sat down and entered into an express agreement that they would unite to accomplish an un- lawful purpose. The proof of an unlawful conspiracy is not often made by direct, open, and positive evidence of an agreement. More | generally, and more naturally, proof )pf the combination is made by show ing q repetition of acts of char acter conducting to show a mutual purpose. In a conspiracy case, 1t is seldom true that any one act, taken by itself, can be detected as tending to prove a combination. But when 1t is seen in connection with other acts of each accused and other acts of the other accused, its true nature may be discovered. And so, as this species of proof is null tiplied 8 strong case of unlawful combination is often established. To put 1t another way, the combina- ton or confederation may be proved by circumstantial evidence, that is, by proof of the separate acts of the individuals accused, and of cir Icumstances, from which the exist ence of the illegal confederation may be inferred. Before you should bring in a verdict of guilty against any one of these defendants, you must be satisfied beyond reason able doubt that he participated in the unlawful combination charged But in order for you to find that such an unlawful combination exist cd or that the particular accused was . member of 1t, 1t is not necessary that you find that he en- tered Into a definite and express agreement with some of the other accused. It is not necessary that you find that there was an open and expressed declaration among the defendants that they would unite to accomplish the unlawful purpose charged. If you find that the vari- ous acts of the parties were com- lnitted in such a manner and under such circumstances that you are forced to conclude therefrom beyond a reasonable doubt that those acts were done as a result of a previous agreement or understanding among them and were done in concert. then you have found that a combination or confederation existed among the parties who participated in those acts.
 Continuing Offense
 The crime of conspiracy may be and generally is a continuing of fense. Most crimes are made up of . single act or at least a group of acts all committed at about the