Opinion ID: 776532
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Variance between single conspiracy as charged and the proof at trial

Text: 121 Alcantera and Batoon also claim that the single conspiracy charged in the indictment impermissibly varied from the evidence at trial which proved, at most, that two separate conspiracies existed. A defendant alleging a variance between a single conspiracy charged in an indictment and the proof presented at trial must demonstrate, first, that there was such a variance and, second, that the variance prejudiced one of his substantial rights. United States v. Quintero, 38 F.3d 1317, 1337 (3d Cir.1994) (citing United States v. Kelly, 892 F.2d 255, 258 (3d Cir.1989)). Where a single conspiracy is alleged in the indictment, there is a variance if the evidence at trial proves only the existence of multiple conspiracies. Kelly, 892 F.2d at 258 (citing United States v. Smith, 789 F.2d 196, 200 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 1017, 107 S.Ct. 668, 93 L.Ed.2d 720 (1986)). The issue of whether a single conspiracy or multiple conspiracies exist is a fact question to be decided by a jury. United States v. Curran, 20 F.3d 560, 572 (3d Cir.1994) (citing Smith, 789 F.2d at 200). We will sustain the jury's verdict if there is substantial evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the Government, to support a finding of a single conspiracy. Smith, 789 F.2d at 200. 122 To provide notice of the charges against a defendant and to protect against double jeopardy, the indictment must adequately set forth the crime alleged. See Gaither v. United States, 413 F.2d 1061, 1071 (D.C.Cir.1969). Where evidence at trial proves facts different than those alleged in the indictment, an impermissible variance may exist. Smith, 789 F.2d at 200. For example, when a single conspiracy is charged in the indictment and the evidence at trial proves only the existence of multiple, unrelated conspiracies, there is a variance. See Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U.S. 750, 66 S.Ct. 1239, 90 L.Ed. 1557 (1946); Kelly, 892 F.2d at 258; United States v. Boyd, 595 F.2d 120, 123 (3d Cir.1978). 123 Multiple conspiracies are separate networks operating independently of each other. United States v. Barr, 963 F.2d 641, 648 (3d Cir.1992). However, a finding of a master conspiracy with sub-schemes does not constitute a finding of multiple, unrelated conspiracies and, therefore, would not create an impermissible variance. Smith, 789 F.2d at 200. Thus, the relatedness of the activities of the co-conspirators in support of the overall illegal scheme can defeat a claim of multiple conspiracies. 124 Variances are examined on a case-by-case basis and constitute reversible error only if the defendant was prejudiced. Smith, 789 F.2d at 200 (citing United States v. Castro, 776 F.2d 1118, 1121 (3d Cir.1985)); United States v. Somers, 496 F.2d 723, 743 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 832, 95 S.Ct. 56, 42 L.Ed.2d 58 (1974). This variance doctrine protects a defendant from being tried en masse for the conglomeration of distinct and separate offenses committed by others. United States v. Salmon, 944 F.2d 1106, 1116 (3d Cir.1991), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 1110, 112 S.Ct. 1213, 117 L.Ed.2d 451 (1992) (quoting Kelly, 892 F.2d at 258). The doctrine is intended to prevent a situation in which the jury might `be unable to separate offenders and offenses and easily could ... transfer[ ] the guilt from one alleged co-schemer to another.' Barr, 963 F.2d at 648 (quoting United States v. Camiel, 689 F.2d 31, 38 (3d Cir.1982)). 125 Several courts have focused on the interdependency of the sub-schemes in support of the overall conspiracy. See, e.g., Evans, 970 F.2d at 670 (the defendant's actions must `facilitate the endeavors of other alleged co-conspirators or facilitate the venture as a whole') (citing United States v. Horn, 946 F.2d 738, 743 (10th Cir.1991)); United States v. Sophie, 900 F.2d 1064, 1080 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 843, 111 S.Ct. 124, 112 L.Ed.2d 92 (1990); United States v. Kenny, 462 F.2d 1205, 1217 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 914, 93 S.Ct. 233, 34 L.Ed.2d 176 (1972). Interdependency, however, is merely evidence of an agreement. United States v. Taylor, 562 F.2d 1345, 1352 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 432 U.S. 909, 97 S.Ct. 2958, 53 L.Ed.2d 1083 (1977). It is not an element of the offense. United States v. DiPasquale, 740 F.2d 1282, 1291 (3d Cir.1984) (citing United States v. Shoup, 608 F.2d 950, 957 n. 12 (3d Cir.1979)). 126 In support of their argument, Alcantera and Batoon cite to a snippet from the uncorroborated co-conspirator testimony of Almiranez. 127 Q.: (Direct examination of Almiranez by Government) When individuals came over to [Del Rosario's] apartment, what happened? 128 A.: Oh, they get their drugs too. Everybody that went there, they get their own drugs. 129