Opinion ID: 629224
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Conspiracy Conviction as Charged in the Indictment

Text: 10 [I]f the indictment charges jointly tried defendants with participation in a single conspiracy, but the evidence reveals multiple, discrete conspiracies, such a variance of proof may be so prejudicial as to require reversal. United States v. Kenny, 645 F.2d 1323, 1334 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 452 U.S. 920, 101 S.Ct. 3059, 69 L.Ed.2d 425 (1981). The question of whether a single conspiracy has been proved, rather than multiple conspiracies, is a recurring one, which is essentially a question of the sufficiency of the evidence. United States v. Bibbero, 749 F.2d 581, 586 (9th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1103, 105 S.Ct. 2330, 85 L.Ed.2d 847 (1985). Therefore, the critical issue is  'whether after reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.'  United States v. Bishop, 959 F.2d 820, 829 (9th Cir.1992) (quoting Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 2789, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979)). 11 To prove a conspiracy exists the government must prove three elements: (1) an agreement to commit an illegal act; (2) an overt act in furtherance of the illegal objective; and (3) a requisite intent to commit the underlying offense. United States v. Penagos, 823 F.2d 346, 348 (9th Cir.1987). The evidence clearly indicates that Martin conspired with Jackson but the indictment did not charge Martin for that conspiracy. Instead, the indictment charged Martin, Jackson, Allen, Romero, and Cullinan for one overall conspiracy. 12 The charged conspiracy takes the form of a wheel with Jackson being the hub and Martin, Allen, Romero, and Cullinan being the spokes. To establish the overall conspiracy, the government must supply proof that the spokes are bound by a rim. Kenny, 645 F.2d at 1335 (internal quotation marks omitted). In other words, the evidence must show that there was one overall agreement among the various parties to perform various functions in order to carry out the objectives of the conspiracy. United States v. Kearney, 560 F.2d 1358, 1362 (9th Cir.) (quotation omitted), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 971, 98 S.Ct. 522, 54 L.Ed.2d 460 (1977). It is sufficient to show that each defendant knew or had reason to know of the scope of the conspiracy and that each defendant had reason to believe that their own benefits were dependent upon the success of the entire venture. Kenny, 645 F.2d at 1335 (quotation omitted). 13 Based on the evidence here, a jury could reasonably have found that the overall conspiracy as charged in the indictment existed. However, that does not end our inquiry. The next question is whether the evidence connects Martin to that overall conspiracy. See United States v. Brown, 912 F.2d 1040, 1044 (9th Cir.1990) (after concluding that an overall conspiracy existed, the court found it necessary to determine whether the defendant was part of that conspiracy). In determining whether the necessary link exists, there must be evidence to show Martin's knowledge of and dependency on the overall conspiracy. See id. at 1044 (While only slight evidence is needed to convict a person of knowing participation, we have emphasized the fact that there must be knowledge and dependency.). 14 The government argues that the evidence links Martin to the single overall conspiracy because Martin introduced Jackson to Agent Scott, and Jackson, in turn, involved Allen, Romero, and Cullinan in the transaction. We disagree. Martin was double-crossed by Jackson and had no idea that Jackson and others were dealing separately with Agent Scott. Martin's initial plan to obtain and supply Agent Scott with methamphetamine was not dependent on Jackson's double-dealing, and Martin did not benefit from the separate actions of Jackson, Allen, Romero, and Cullinan. 15 The evidence does not in any meaningful way connect Martin to the overall conspiracy, and therefore, we reverse Martin's conspiracy conviction as charged in the indictment on the ground of insufficient evidence.