Opinion ID: 470866
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Court's Jury Instruction on Multiple Conspiracies

Text: 47 At trial defendant requested the following jury instruction on multiple conspiracies with emphasis on the unanimity required: 48 Count Two of the indictment charges that the conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine and distribution began on or about late 1972 and thereafter was continuously carried out until approximately June, 1982. You need not find that the conspiracy lasted the entire period from late 1972 to June, 1982, in order to find the existence of a conspiracy. However, you must unanimously find a single conspiracy which existed between unanimously agreed upon dates, and that such a conspiracy was the overall scheme charged in the indictment. Thus, unless and until you can unanimously agree on inclusive dates for a single conspiracy in which a particular defendant participated, and further unanimously agree that such a conspiracy was the single overall scheme charged in the indictment, you must acquit the defendant. 49 Although agreeing to give an instruction on multiple conspiracies, the district judge declined to give defendant's proposed instruction, but rather instructed the jury: 50 [T]he Indictment charges the Defendant with a single conspiratorial scheme to possess with intent to distribute and distribution of cocaine which is alleged to have occurred continuously between approximately late 1972 until approximately June, 1982. You must find that the same conspiratorial scheme that is charged in the Indictment is the one which in fact existed and in which this Defendant participated in order to convict this Defendant. 51 Thus, even if you find a Defendant did participate in a particular conspiracy, but that conspiracy differed from and was not the overall specific scheme charged in the Indictment, you must acquit that Defendant. This is so even if you find that some of the Defendants conspired together in a different conspiracy. You need not find that the conspiracy lasted the entire period from late 1972 to June, 1982, in order to find the existence of a conspiracy which existed between dates, and that such a conspiracy was the overall scheme charged in the Indictment. In sum, you must find beyond a reasonable doubt that the charged conspiracy as set forth in the Indictment existed between specific dates included within those charged in the Indictment and that Defendant Stanley was a member of such conspiracy. 52 Defendant agrees that the 'instruction in itself' is not improper; he argues, however, that it failed to specifically explain the unanimity that must occur, citing United States v. Echeverry, 698 F.2d 375 (9th Cir.), modified, 719 F.2d 974 (1983). Echeverry, however, does not require the instruction offered by this defendant. In this case, distinguishing the situation from Echeverry, no showing was made as to the likelihood of confusion to the jury. We find no error in the use of the trial court's instruction. 53