Opinion ID: 3029395
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Number of Conspiracies

Text: Weaver contends that the Government’s evidence did not support the existence of one master conspiracy; rather, it suggested only the existence of multiple “hub and spoke” 6 conspiracies. He claims this is a problem because the evidence did not support the existence of the conspiracy charged. In the superseding indictment, the Government alleged one master conspiracy comprised of two sub-schemes: the rent payment subscheme and the ghost teaching sub-scheme. The indictment clearly alleged that Eugene Weaver’s involvement was limited to the latter. Deciding how to characterize a large-scale criminal enterprise like this one is rarely easy. We note, however, that the size and scope of a conspiracy are issues of fact, and we typically defer to the jury’s resolution of them. United States v. Perez, 280 F.3d 318, 345 (3d Cir. 2002). Still, our deference is not absolute; we review for substantial evidence, id., and in determining whether the Government’s proof was sufficient to sustain a determination that there was one overarching conspiracy, we consider the following factors: (1) whether the conspirators were bound by a common purpose, (2) whether the agreement brought about a continuous result that could not carry on without the ongoing cooperation of the conspirators, and (3) the extent of the participants’ overlap. United States v. Kelly, 852 F.2d 255, 259 (3d Cir. 1989) (citations omitted). Here, the Government argues that the overall purpose of the conspiracy was to steal federal funds granted to CCP by pretending to operate an adult education program. The Government freely admits that the conspiracy’s principals—Delores Weaver and Faridah Ali—devised two separate but related means of obtaining CCP money: (1) by paying teacher salaries to ghost teachers and (2) by paying rent for the putative location of the classes. All members of the conspiracy—the principals and the ghost 7 teachers—profited from the scheme. By ensuring that the program’s books and finances looked normal (i.e., it was paying both rent and teachers, as one would expect), the two sub-schemes worked together to keep up the appearance that everything was functioning normally. Similarly, the participation of ghost teachers like Eugene Weaver was vital to keep up the ruse that the program was actually holding classes. By formally scheduling Weaver to teach courses, paying him for teaching, and keeping records to that effect, the principals helped ensure that they maintained all of the trappings of an extant program. It is true that the evidence does not show that lower-level co-conspirators (and Weaver in particular) knew about one another. Moreover, it is unclear to what extent they knew the breadth of the overall scheme. These facts, however, do not mean that a jury could not find the existence of one unified conspiracy. Because the overarching scheme had a common purpose with separate but interdependent parts, and the Government proved that Weaver agreed with Delores Weaver to participate in one of the sub-schemes, the fact that he may not have known all of the details, participants, or the overall scope of the conspiracy does not defeat the jury’s finding. United States v. Padilla, 982 F.2d 110, 114 (3d Cir. 1992) (citing United States v. Adams, 759 F.2d 1099, 1109–10 (3d Cir. 1985)) (“The government need not prove that each defendant knew all the details, goals, or other participants.”). Because the Government presented evidence from which the jury could have concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that Weaver participated in a single conspiracy to 8 steal money from CCP, we cannot reverse on this ground.4