Opinion ID: 592148
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Withdrawal and Conspiracy Law

Text: 12 Because withdrawal from a conspiracy is closely akin to withdrawal from a mail or wire fraud scheme, we begin with the withdrawal defense as it applies to a charge of conspiracy. To withdraw from a conspiracy a defendant must either disavow the unlawful goal of the conspiracy, affirmatively act to defeat the purpose of the conspiracy, or take  'definite, decisive, and positive' steps to show that the [defendant's] disassociation from the conspiracy is sufficient. United States v. Loya, 807 F.2d 1483, 1493 (9th Cir.1987) (quoting United States v. Smith, 623 F.2d 627, 631 (9th Cir.1980)). The crime of conspiracy consists of two elements: the defendant's agreement to accomplish an illegal objective and an overt act on the part of some member of the conspiracy toward achieving that objective. Id. Withdrawal negates the element of agreement to the conspiracy's unlawful objective because it marks [the] conspirator's disavowal or abandonment of the conspiratorial agreement. United States v. Read, 658 F.2d 1225, 1232 (7th Cir.1981). 13 This proposition has several logical consequences. First, because due process requires that the government prove each element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt, once the defendant introduces sufficient evidence to make a prima facie case of withdrawal, the burden shifts to the government to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not withdraw. United States v. Steele, 685 F.2d 793, 804 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 908, 103 S.Ct. 213, 74 L.Ed.2d 170 (1982); Read, 658 F.2d at 1236; cf. Sarault, 840 F.2d at 1487 (government not required to rebut evidence of withdrawal because overt act had already occurred and withdrawal did not furnish a defense to conspiracy). But see United States v. Lash, 937 F.2d 1077, 1083 (6th Cir.) (Defendants have the burden of proving withdrawal because it is an affirmative defense.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 112 S.Ct. 397, 116 L.Ed.2d 347 (1991), and cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 112 S.Ct. 943, 117 L.Ed.2d 113 (1992). Second, once an overt act has taken place to accomplish the unlawful objective of the agreement, the crime of conspiracy is complete and the defendant is liable despite his later withdrawal. Loya, 807 F.2d at 1493. 14 In addition to being a crime in itself, conspiracy also determines the scope of a defendant's criminal liability for substantive offenses committed in furtherance of a conspiracy. A defendant is criminally liable for any underlying substantive offenses committed by co-conspirators during the defendant's membership in the conspiracy. On the other hand, a defendant cannot be held liable for substantive offenses committed before joining or after withdrawing from a conspiracy. Levine v. United States, 383 U.S. 265, 266, 86 S.Ct. 925, 925, 15 L.Ed.2d 737 (1966). In this context, therefore, the withdrawal defense also limits liability for underlying substantive offenses. 15 Lothian, however, was not charged with conspiracy. He was charged with and convicted of only substantive fraud offenses: mail fraud, 2 wire fraud, 3 and interstate transportation of fraudulently obtained property. 4 We now turn to withdrawal in these contexts.