Opinion ID: 521073
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Aiding and Abetting the Manufacture of Illegal Weapons

Text: 16 In Count 6, defendant was charged with aiding and abetting David Lawson in knowingly making illegal machine guns. Defendant contends that he lacked the specific intent to facilitate in the manufacture of illegal weapons, arguing that the mere placing of an order for Uzis was too attenuous to the conversion of the CAR-15s as to allow an inference that he intended to facilitate the manufacture of illegal weapons. The government acknowledges in its brief that there was no evidence that Carl Lawson knew the weapons he requested were to be manufactured by converting semiautomatic weapons to fully automatic ones.... (Brief at 13.) Thus, applying the analysis employed above, it appears that there was insufficient evidence to convict defendant for the offenses charged in Count 7. 17 However, under Pinkerton v. United States, 328 U.S. 640, 646-47, 66 S.Ct. 1180, 1183-84, 90 L.Ed. 1489 (1946), a coconspirator can be held responsible for the substantive offenses of other coconspirators. In Pinkerton, the Supreme Court held that the crime of conspiracy does not merge into the completed substantive offense, and, thus, the foreseeable crimes committed by a coconspirator in the furtherance of the conspiracy may be imputed to the other coconspirators. Id. at 647, 66 S.Ct. at 1184. The Court reasoned that the overt act of one conspirator is imputed to the other coconspirators because each conspirator is in essence the agent of the other. Id. at 646-47, 66 S.Ct. at 1183-84. The criminal intent to do the act is established by the formation of the conspiracy. Id. at 647, 66 S.Ct. at 1184. Moreover, one coconspirator need not even know about the acts of another to be held responsible for them. United States v. Davis, 809 F.2d 1194, 1203 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 483 U.S. 1007, 107 S.Ct. 3234, 97 L.Ed.2d 740 (1987). 18 In the instant case, the jury was properly instructed on the Pinkerton doctrine. (Record XXI at 138.) Based on Pinkerton, where defendant Carl Lawson was convicted of conspiracy to make illegal firearms and where a coconspirator was convicted for the illegal manufacture of weapons, Carl Lawson may be held liable for the substantive offense as well. Even assuming that the evidence failed to prove aiding and abetting ... persons indicted as aiders and abetters may be convicted pursuant to a Pinkerton instruction. United States v. Cerone, 830 F.2d 938, 944 (8th Cir.1987) (collecting cases), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 108 S.Ct. 1730, 100 L.Ed.2d 194 (1988). While defendant's argument does have some logical appeal, it is clear that the law fails to support such a position. Accordingly, we affirm defendant's conviction under Count 7.