Court Opinion

ID: 9843211
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 02:30:45.143387+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:15:01.185611
License: Public Domain

MURPHY, Circuit Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent from the court’s decision to reverse and dismiss Grimmett’s conviction for conspiracy to distribute more than 1,000 kilograms of marijuana. Although given the opportunity by our earlier remand in this case, Grimmett did not satisfy her burden of showing that she had affirmatively disavowed the conspiracy five years prior to her indictment in order to bar prosecution on the basis of the statute of limitations.
The five year statute of limitations for conspiracy begins to run if a conspirator takes affirmative action that “properly and adequately terminates his or her involvement with the conspiracy.” United States v. Antar, 53 F.3d 568, 582 (3d Cir.1995). See Hyde v. United States, 225 U.S. 347, 369, 32 S.Ct. 793, 56 L.Ed. 1114 (1912). It is well established that the “[m]ere cessation” of illegal activities is not enough to protect a conspirator from legal liability. United States v. Maggard, 156 F.3d 843, 851 (8th Cir.1998) Rather, a defendant must “present evidence of some affirmative act of withdrawal on [her] part, typically either a full confession to the authorities or communication to [her] co-conspirators that [she] has abandoned the enterprise and its goals.” Antar, 53 F.3d at 582 (emphasis omitted). This is a “rigorous” standard, United States v. Borelli 336 F.2d 376, 388 (2d Cir.1964), and the defendant bears the burden of proving her withdrawal. See Maggard, 156 F.3d at 851.
We previously instructed that Grimmett could prevail on her motion to dismiss her indictment as time-barred only if she could show that she had “affirmatively disavowed the conspiracy more than five years before the indictment by making a clean breast to the authorities or by communicating her withdrawal in a manner reasonably calculated to reach coconspirators.” United States v. Grimmett, 150 F.3d 958, 961 (8th Cir.1998) (Grimmett I) (citations omitted). Because Grimmett was indicted on November 14, 1994, she needed to show *457that she had withdrawn from the conspiracy before November 14, 1989, in order to be protected by the statute of limitations. After an evidentiary hearing, the magistrate judge concluded that Grimmett had not met her burden of showing that she had affirmatively withdrawn from the conspiracy five years before her indictment.3
The magistrate judge found that Grim-mett had not disclosed to law enforcement officials before November 14, 1989 the true extent of her participation in and knowledge of the conspiracy. The court discussed the history of her various disclosures in its findings. The court also found that Grimmett had apparently attempted to skew the results of her July 6, 1989 polygraph test by taking a sedative prior to the test and that she had terminated an interview in 1992 and ceased cooperating after a detective began questioning her about her possible involvement in Kerns’ murder. The magistrate judge cited several precedents holding that “a clean breast” requires a full and complete confession and concluded that because Grim-mett had not made a complete confession to the authorities five years prior to her indictment, she had not made a timely withdrawal from the conspiracy.
In its discussion of some of Grimmett’s communications with law enforcement officials, the court appears to recognize that she was not completely honest in June and July of 1989 about the extent of her participation in the conspiracy and that it was not until 1992 that she made additional disclosures. Only in 1992 did she disclose that she had always accompanied Kerns when he collected money from marijuana customers, that she had helped him count the proceeds from his drug business, and that she had received cocaine deliveries for their personal use. In direct contradiction of her earlier statements, Grimmett admitted in 1992 that she had an understanding of Kerns’ method of recordkeeping, that she had helped Kerns with the books, and that she had understood that the word “sticks” in the records referred to the narcotic “Thai sticks.”
Although the court depicts Grimmett’s role in the conspiracy as minor, her 1992 disclosures indicate that Grimmett was actually quite involved in various aspects of the conspiracy. Grimmett revealed for the first time in 1992 that Kerns and a companion had gone to Chicago and “cleaned out” a man for not paying a large drug debt and that Kerns had gone to Colombia to negotiate a drug purchase and had been threatened by Colombians. Although the court States that Grimmett “told the investigators she would cooperate in any way she could, and there is no evidence she failed to do so,” the undisputed facts in the parties’ stipulation indicate that Grimmett stopped cooperating with law enforcement in 1992 after an interview in which she was questioned about her own involvement in Kerns’ murder. The facts do not support the conclusion that she cooperated “in any way she could.”
Whether the information Grimmett had provided in 1989 gave prosecuting authorities sufficient evidence or incentive to indict her was for them to decide. That question is different from the one before the court, which is whether Grimmett met the test for withdrawal from the conspiracy by making “a full confession to the authorities.” Antar, 53 F.3d at 582 (emphasis supplied), United States v. Steele, 685 F.2d 793, 803 (3d Cir.1982). The stipulated record shows that Grimmett did not make a full confession in 1989 about her knowledge and role in the conspiracy. Her additional disclosures in 1992 related directly to her involvement and culpability *458in the conspiracy, and in some respects they contradicted what she had told authorities in 1989.
A conspirator should not be able to claim the benefits of the statute of limitations unless she has withdrawn and made a full and accurate disclosure. “As [the conspirator] has started evil forces, he must withdraw his support from them or incur the guilt of their continuance. Until he does withdraw there is conscious offending,” and until the conspirator “does some act to disavow or defeat the purpose he is in no situation to claim the delay of the law.” Hyde, 225 U.S. at 369-370, 32 S.Ct. 793. Otherwise a conspirator could escape the consequences of his or her criminal conduct by misleading authorities.
Based upon the stipulated record, the magistrate judge found that Grimmett had not withdrawn from the conspiracy. Because she lied to authorities about her knowledge of the drug records and her total role in the conspiracy and eventually ceased cooperating when they began to focus on her possible involvement in Kerns’ murder, she has not shown that she disavowed or defeated the purpose of the conspiracy. Accordingly, she should not now be permitted to claim that her prosecution is barred by the statute of limitations. Finding no error of fact or law in the decision of the district court, I would affirm its judgment.

. In our earlier opinion we recognized that the issue of whether Grimmett had withdrawn from the conspiracy so that prosecution was barred might be subject to determination as a matter of law or might require resolution of fact issues by the court (or possibly even by a jury). See Grimmett I, 150 F.3d at 962. The parties indicated at oral argument that they both agreed to have the issue decided by the magistrate judge upon stipulated facts and the testimony of Grimmett’s stepfather.