Legal Document

537 U.S. 270 UNITED STATESv.JIMENEZ RECIO ET AL. No. 01-1184. Supreme Court of United States. Argued November 12, 2002. Decided January 21, 2003. Ninth Circuit precedent states that a conspiracy terminates when "`there is affirmative evidence ... defeat the object conspiracy.'" States v. Cruz, 127 F. 3d 791, 795 (emphasis added). Here, police stopped truck carrying illegal drugs, seized and, with help truck's drivers, set up sting. The drivers paged contact who said he would call someone to get truck. Respondents Jimenez Recio and Lopez-Meza appeared in car, former drove away truck, latter car. After jury convicted them conspiring possess distribute unlawful judge ordered new trial because, under could not convict respondents unless it believed they had joined before been so instructed. respondents, appealed. reversed, holding presented at second was insufficient show drug seizure. Held: A does automatically terminate simply because Government has defeated its object. Thus, incorrect view ends through "defeat" intervenes, making conspiracy's goals impossible achieve, even if conspirators do know intervened are totally unaware bound fail. First, Circuit's rule inconsistent basic law. agreement commit an act "a distinct evil," which "may exist be punished whether or substantive crime ensues." Salinas States, 522 U. S. 52, 65. poses "threat public" over above threat crime's commission—both "[c]ombination makes more likely commission [other] crimes" "decreases probability individuals involved will depart from their path criminality." E. g., Callanan 364 587, 593-594. Where have frustrated specific objective but (unaware fact) neither abandoned nor withdrawn, these special conspiracy-related dangers remain, as essence—the crime. Second, this Court's almost all courts commentators for Circuit. No other Federal Appeals adopted rule, three explicitly rejected it. Cruz majority argued traditional threatened "endless" potential liability. But majority's example illustrating point—a sting instructed arrested conspirator his acquaintances come him, obtaining convictions those did so—draws persuasive force fact bears certain resemblances entrapment, law independently forbids. At same time, reach well beyond arguable misbehavior, potentially threatening use properly run enforcement operations. See Lewis 385 206, 208-209. precedent, whereby language "`the defendant purpose'" Krasn, 614 2d 1229, 1236, changed presumed continue until there [conspiracy's purpose]" Bloch, 696 1213, 1215 added), may explain rule's origin. But, since earlier cases nowhere give any reason critical change, cannot justify Pp. 274-277. 258 1069, reversed remanded. BREYER, J., delivered opinion Court, REHNQUIST, C. O'CONNOR, SCALIA, KENNEDY, SOUTER, THOMAS, GINSBURG, JJ., joined. STEVENS, filed concurring part dissenting part, post, p. 278. CERTIORARI TO THE STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR NINTH CIRCUIT. Deputy Solicitor General Dreeben cause With him on brief were Olson, Assistant Attorney Chertoff, James A. Feldman, Jonathan L. Marcus. M. Karl Shurtliff respondent Recio. Thomas Sullivan Lopez-Meza.* JUSTICE BREYER Court. 1 We here consider validity becomes achieve—when, example, frustrates by seizing drugs members agreed distribute. In our view, contain such "automatic termination" rule. 2 * (CA9 1997), Circuit, following case, Castro, 972 1107, 1112 1992), wrote abandonment, withdrawal, disavowal (Emphasis added.) It considered conviction individual who, charged, (to drugs) after question. found Government's seizure guaranteed objective, namely, distribution. held terminated "defeat," i. e., drugs. Hence individual, point, member. 3 case lower applied similar facts: On 18, 1997, Nevada. They found, seized, large stash two took drivers' destination, mall Idaho. described location. And hours later, defendants, Francisco Adrian Lopez-Meza, truck; car direction. Police both vehicles men. 4 federal grand indicted Recio, original charging having conspired, together others, four. then decided instructions erroneous respect Lopez-Meza. noted prosecute defendants supra, 795-796. That holding, here, meant Nevada where effect. men once again. 5 pointed out that, given find stop, claimed trials warrant finding. panel, vote 1, agreed. All panel accepted binding Two concluded sufficient One first either, circumstance she warranted reversal. third member, dissenting, adequately demonstrated preseizure membership. He added he, like members, "totally long established appropriate principles conspiracy," urged overrule en banc "at earliest opportunity." 1079, n. (2001) (opinion Gould, J.). 6 sought certiorari. premised upon legal enunciated Cruz. asked us decide validity, matter government objective." Pet. Cert. (I). II 7 continues "`until 3d, (quoting 1112). portion statement last segment, "`defeat [its] object.'" holdings make clear phrase means incorrect. Government, unbeknownst some conspirators, "defeat[ed]" "object." 8 considerations convince proper own understanding repeatedly essence "an act." Iannelli 420 770, 777 (1975); see Shabani, 513 10, 16 (1994); Braverman 317 49, 53 (1942). 65 (1997). relevant crime—both 593-594 (1961); also Rabinowich, 238 78, 88 (1915) (conspiracy "sometimes quite outweigh[s], injury public, mere contemplated crime"). remain. Cf. W. LaFave & Scott, Substantive Criminal Law § 6.5, 85 (1986) ("[i]mpossibility" "criminal combinations dangerous apart danger attaining particular objective"). So too remains conspiracy—the being so, necessarily conspiracy. 9 we endorse today Three Wallace, 1063, 1068 (CA2 1996), court "conspiracy actually realized facts unknown irrelevant." Belardo-Quiñones, 71 941, 944 (CA1 1995) exists if, commit); LaBudda, 882 244, 248 (CA7 1989) (defendants can guilty "is unattainable very beginning"). treatise, surveying decisions, "[i]mpossibility success defense." 85; id., 6.5(b), 90-93. American Institute's Model Penal Code 5.03, 384 (1985), "terminates crimes committed" "agreement abandoned." "impossibility" basis termination. 10 termination To illustrate posited go "telephone directory . [and] acquaintances" so. 795, 3. problem however, though entrapment itself, draws entrapment. forbids rest Jacobson 503 540, 548-549 (1992); Sorrells 287 435, 442-445 (1932). fails why different branch law, should modified forbid entrapment-like behavior falls outside bounds current Russell, 411 423, 435 (1973) ("defense intended judiciary veto" disapproved "law practices"). 208-209 (1966) (Government "use decoys" conceal agents' identity); Lyman, Investigation 484-485 (2d ed. 1999) (explaining importance undercover operations enforcing laws). 11 tracing origins relied, 1982 court, referring 1229 1980), Krasn "`presumed abandoned, withdrew from, disavowed purpose.'" Id., 1236 Bloch grammatical structure. purposes conspiracy." 2d, Later apparently read change mean terminates, only defeats else perhaps police. followed Bloch. 1112. quoted Castro. 795. This history origin language, III 12 conclude conspiracy-termination forth manner discussed. reverse present judgment insofar relies holding. Because raised arguments considered, remand specifying arguments, raised. 13 remanded further proceedings consistent opinion. 14 ordered. Notes: Jay Alan Sekulow, Stuart J. Roth, Colby May, Joel H. Thornton, John P. Tuskey, Shannon D. Woodruff Center Justice et al. amici curiae urging part. accordance 795-796 District Judge charged instruction: "A indictment time possible achieve App. 75a-76a. For reasons stated opinion, instruction erroneous. My joining without qualification procedural. Rule effect provided: "No party assign error charge omission therefrom objects thereto retires verdict, stating distinctly grounds objection." Fed. Crim. Proc. 30 (1988). objected trial, bothered question decision appeal Circuit.* Although challenge petition rehearing banc, my came late preserve decides today. Williams, 504 36, 56-60 (1992) (STEVENS, dissenting). prosecutor, defendant, required turn square corners. Indeed, embraced flawedCruz closing argument jury: "So, summary, assuming you encompassed one load, order each guilty, what must proved reasonable doubt? conspiracy; number 2, limited just load seized; conspiracy, became narcotics .... If elements missing, acquit. That's burden that's placed willingly accept." Brief Opposition 34a (emphases

Classification Label: 0