Opinion ID: 663117
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: General principles of conspiracy law

Text: 36 To establish that a defendant is guilty of conspiracy, the government must prove that the defendant knew of the conspiracy and intended to join and associate himself with its criminal design and purpose. United States v. Auerbach, 913 F.2d 407, 414-15 (7th Cir.1990). We will only reverse a jury verdict if no rational trier of fact could have found all of the elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt, viewing the evidence and every reasonable inference in the light most favoring the prosecution. United States v. Colonia, 870 F.2d 1319, 1326 (7th Cir.1989). Furthermore, we will allow a jury to infer from circumstantial evidence that a conspiracy existed. United States v. Townsend, 924 F.2d 1385, 1391 (7th Cir.1991) (Conspiracies, like other crimes, may be proved entirely by circumstantial evidence.). Id. 37 A buyer-seller relationship between two people cannot, by itself, establish a conspiracy. Id. at 1394. Rather a conspiracy requires an agreement to commit some other crime beyond the crime constituted by the agreement itself. United States v. Lechuga, 994 F.2d 346, 349 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 114 S.Ct. 482, 126 L.Ed.2d 433 (1993). Therefore, if the only agreement is for the seller to sell, and the buyer to buy, an amount of cocaine no conspiracy exists. Id. It is not even sufficient if the evidence shows a buy-sell agreement but also shows that the buyer ultimately resold the drugs; rather, the resale must have been contemplated by the original two parties and must have been part of the conspiratorial agreement. Id. On the other hand if the seller agrees to sell cocaine to the buyer, and the buyer agrees to buy, specifically for the purpose of having that buyer later distribute the cocaine to others (i.e. an agreement that the buyer become a distributor) a conspiracy does exist--there is an agreement beyond the mere sale for personal consumption. Id. 38 There is little, if any, clarity in this circuit regarding the evidence necessary to demonstrate this agreement to distribute. We have, however, located a few relevant factors and will focus largely on them. Conspiracies, like all business ventures, are typically distinguished by cooperative relationships between the parties that facilitate the achievement of the goal. Townsend, 924 F.2d at 1395. Furthermore, they are evidenced by lower transaction costs. Id. at 1394. If the parties must negotiate the terms of every transaction, [or] seek to maximize their gains at the expense of others, ... the transaction costs among the group are [probably] high and a conspiracy probably does not exist. Id. Transactions in large quantities of drugs, 5 prolonged cooperation between the parties, 6 and [e]vidence that the parties have standardized their transactions with one another 7 are all relevant factors in determining if a conspiracy exists. Finally, if A sells drugs to B who then distributes the drugs, and A knows of, and benefits from, B's subsequent distribution, we may infer a limited agreement to distribute between A and B. Id. at 1392. 39