Opinion ID: 534912
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: One or More Conspiracies?

Text: 9 Count 1 of the indictment charged as follows: 10 FROM ON OR ABOUT January 1, 1980, and after January 1, 1985, and continuing until on or about February 10, 1988, in the Northern District of Florida and elsewhere, the defendants, 11 THOMAS LEE RUSH, 12 EUNICE REBECCA SMITH, 13 a/k/a BECQUE SMITH, 14 ANTHONY EDWARD PONTON, 15 TOM MIX GAY, 16 RICHARD RAYMOND WILLIAMS, 17 KERRY E. PHILLIPS, 18 and 19 DENNIS O. PHILLIPS, 20 knowingly and intentionally did combine, conspire, confederate, agree with and have a tacit understanding together with each other and with other persons: 21 (1) to manufacture, possess with intent to distribute and distribute fifty kilograms or more of marijuana, a controlled substance; 22 (2) to manufacture, possess with intent to distribute and distribute methamphetamine, a controlled substance; and 23 (3) to possess with intent to distribute and distribute 500 grams or more of cocaine, a controlled substance; 24 and all this was done in violation of Section 846 of Title 21 of the United States Code. 25 The record is replete with evidence that during the entire period covered by the alleged conspiracy, the named defendants were most, if not all, closely associated either as members of the Rush family or the Smith family, which later became the Rush-Smith family when Smith began to live with Rush and keep house for him and his children. Appellants do not contend that there was insufficient evidence to establish at least one conspiracy in the terms alleged in the indictment. They contend only that the court should have considered that each separate action during the period from 1980 until 1988, should be considered as a separate conspiracy. Having considered the evidence carefully, especially noting that during the entire period, some of the parties were actively engaged in the growing, manufacturing, and sale of marijuana, the possession and sale of cocaine and the possession and sale of amphetamines and evidence that each of the alleged conspirators directly participated in some of the alleged substantive acts, we conclude that there was sufficient evidence of the connections and knowing cooperation between the several members of the alleged conspiracy to warrant a jury trial on this issue. 26 The plan does not become several plans simply because some members were cast in more vital roles than others or because certain members performed only a single function. Neither does it become several plans because of internal personnel changes. The government's substantial proof of overlapping membership and activities directed toward a common goal is sufficient to support the jury verdict reflecting a single conspiracy. 27 United States v. Michel, 588 F.2d 986, 995 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 825, 100 S.Ct. 47, 62 L.Ed.2d 32 (1979).