Opinion ID: 734913
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Denial of the motion for judgment of acquittal

Text: 31 LaFromboise also challenges the district court's denial of his motion for judgment of acquittal on all counts but Counts 1, 7, and 28, which he made at the close of the government's case. LaFromboise based this motion on his argument that the government had not shown that he could be held liable for the actions of his co-conspirators which took place after he withdrew from the conspiracy and after he was in custody. The district court denied the motion. Generally speaking, once a conspiracy is found, all co-conspirators are liable for all actions taken by other co-conspirators which are (1) in furtherance of the conspiracy and (2) reasonably foreseeable. Pinkerton, 328 U.S. at 646-48; U.S. v. Crespo de Llano, 838 F.2d 1006, 1019 (9th Cir.1987). However, a conspirator can withdraw from a conspiracy and thereby relieve himself of liability for subsequent acts of the conspiracy. Levine v. U.S., 383 U.S. 265, 266 (1966); U.S. v. Brewer, 983 F.2d 181, 184 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 508 U.S. 913 (1993); U.S. v. O'Campo, 973 F.2d 1015, 1021 (1st Cir.1992). A conspirator accomplishes a withdrawal by taking steps inconsistent with the conspiracy and communicating those acts in a manner reasonably calculated to reach the co-conspirator. U.S. v. Butler, 41 F.3d 1435, 1446 (11th Cir.1995); U.S. v. Johnson, 956 F.2d 894, 906 (9th Cir.1992), modified on other grounds, 969 F.2d 849 (9th Cir.1992). 32 LaFromboise argues that he withdrew from the conspiracy by robbing Ehrlich's warehouse. There was evidence, however, of continuing communications and conduct between LaFromboise and Ehrlich from which a jury could have inferred that they had patched up their differences and decided to continue working together. Thus, although the jury was properly prepared to consider the possibility of withdrawal, they apparently chose not to accept it. We find that the district court's denial here was based on correct instructions and the evidence and should therefore be upheld.