Opinion ID: 497966
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Counting Conspiracies

Text: 24 To determine whether there was a variance between indictment and proof we must count the number of conspiracies proved at trial. Counting the number of conspiracies proved is a difficult exercise. United States v. Morado, 454 F.2d 167, 170 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 406 U.S. 917, 92 S.Ct. 1767, 32 L.Ed.2d 116 (1972). In counting the number of conspiracies, the principal factors are (1) the existence of a common goal, (2) the nature of the scheme and (3) overlapping of participants in the various dealings. United States v. Tilton, 610 F.2d 302, 307 (5th Cir.1980). 25 1. The common goal. Where the evidence demonstrates that all of the alleged co-conspirators directed their efforts towards the accomplishment of a single goal or common purpose, then a single conspiracy exists. Elam, 678 F.2d at 1245. [T]here must be one objective, or set of objectives, or an overall objective to be achieved by multiple actions. United States v. Perez, 489 F.2d 51, 62 (5th Cir.1973), cert. denied, 417 U.S. 945, 94 S.Ct. 3067, 41 L.Ed.2d 664 (1974). This court has identified as common purposes: (1) the passing of a large quantity of counterfeit bills over a period of time; 14 (2) a series of staged automobile collisions involving a varying pattern of participants, in different locations, over an extended time period; 15 (3) a plan, over three years in process, with varying participants, to buy cocaine; 16 and (4) in a mail fraud conspiracy case, mutual enrichment or the amassing of money by false representations about the value of Llano ore and its commercial capabilities. 17 Given these broad common goals the common objective test may have become a mere matter of semantics. See United States v. Perez, 489 F.2d at 62 n. 18. In any event, given this precedent, we cannot say that the Government statement of the common goal is incorrect. The Government states that the common goal driving all members of the single conspiracy in this case was their personal gain through the fraud of Pool Offshore. The Pool Offshore employees realized personal gains by obtaining money and property through kickbacks, and the vendors realized gains by locking in millions of dollars of business through bribes. The overall plan was for all members to obtain some reward for their participation in the conspiracy. 26 2. The nature of the scheme. Another factor is the inherent nature of the criminal scheme. Elam, 678 F.2d at 1246. Courts frequently characterize conspiracies as wheels or chains. As this court has said before, however, 27 Finding that they impede rather than facilitate analysis of the single conspiracy--multiple conspiracy issue, we eschew utilization of figurative analogies such as wheels, rims and hubs, which are often used to describe the nature of complex conspiracies. We reiterate Judge Brown's comment in United States v. Perez, 489 F.2d 51 (5th Cir.1973), that [c]onspiracies are as complex as the versatility of human nature and federal protection against them is not to be measured by spokes, hubs, wheels, rims, chains or any one or all of today's galaxy of mechanical molecular or atomic forms. 489 F.2d at 59, n. 11. The government is not required to attempt to squeeze conspiracy into any particular mold. 28 Elam, 678 F.2d at 1246. In determining the inherent nature of the criminal scheme the Perez court said: 29 If [an] agreement contemplates bringing to pass a continuous result that will not continue without the continuous cooperation of the conspirators to keep it up, then such agreement constitutes a single conspiracy. 30 Perez, 489 F.2d at 62. In Elam this court said:Where the activities of one aspect of the scheme are necessary or advantageous to the success of another aspect of the scheme or to the overall success of the venture, where there are several parts inherent in a larger common plan, ... the existence of a single conspiracy will be inferred. 31 Elam, 678 F.2d at 1246. 32 The nature of this conspiracy was that each member had a different task and level of involvement. A member's task and level of involvement depended on his position in Pool Offshore, in a participating vendor company, or in a buffer company used to conceal the conspiracy. The success of this conspiracy depended on the continued willingness of each member to perform his function. Without the cooperation of the vendors, Ace, LOAES, and Baytron, the overall scheme would have failed. The success of the scheme depended on the continued willingness of the vendors to pay bribes to obtain Pool's business. Likewise, the success of the scheme depended in large part on the continued cooperation of Primary and Universal Electric in laundering the inflated invoices to Pool Offshore to conceal the kickback scheme. The scheme required that the rig superintendents, Billiot and Richerson approve the inflated invoices. The scheme also required that Billiot and Richerson continue to select vendors on the basis of their willingness to pay bribes through kickbacks, loans, or ownership positions in vendor companies. In addition, Billiot and Richerson provided necessary direction for the scheme. 33 3. Overlapping of participants in the various dealings. The final factor which determines whether a single conspiracy exists is the interrelationships between the participants and various parts of the scheme. Where the memberships of two criminal endeavors overlap, a single conspiracy may be found. Elam, 678 F.2d at 1246. There is no requirement that every member must participate in every transaction to find a single conspiracy. 18 Parties who knowingly participate with core conspirators to achieve a common goal may be members of an overall conspiracy. Perez, 489 F.2d at 62. 34 A single conspiracy exists where a key man is involved in and directs illegal activities, while various combinations of other participants exert individual efforts toward a common goal. Elam, 678 F.2d at 1246. Richerson was that key man. The members of a conspiracy which functions through a division of labor need not have an awareness of the existence of the other members, or be privy to the details of each aspect of the conspiracy. Elam, 678 F.2d at 1246. Thus, to establish a single conspiracy, the Government did not have to show that Cable at LOAES or Edwards at Baytron knew exactly what Billiot was doing with Richerson through Ace, Primary and Universal. All that the Government had to show to establish overlapping participants was that Cable and Edwards were conspiring with Richerson, a core conspirator, to pay bribes for Pool Offshore's business. 35 The Government argues that the proof at trial showed one overall agreement among the various parties to perform different functions to carry out the objective of the conspiracy and to bring about a continuous result through the continued cooperation of the conspirators. This court has held that similar agreements constituted one conspiracy. 19 As a result it appears that no variance existed between the indictment and the Government's proof at trial.