voluntarily joined it during its existence, intending to achieve the common goal(s) or objective(s) and to work together with the other alleged conspirators toward (that) (those) goal(s) or objective(s). The government need not prove that (name) knew everything about the conspiracy or that (he) (she) knew everyone involved in it, or that (he) (she) was a member from the beginning. The government also does not have to prove that (name) played a major or substantial role in the conspiracy. You may consider both direct evidence and circumstantial evidence in deciding whether (name) joined the conspiracy, knew of its criminal objective(s), and intended to further the objective(s). Evidence which shows that (name) only knew about the conspiracy, or only kept “bad company” by associating with members of the conspiracy, or was only present when it was discussed or when a crime was committed, is not sufficient to prove that (name) was a member of the conspiracy even if (name) approved of what was happening or did not object to it. Likewise, evidence showing that (name) may have done something that happened to help a conspiracy does not necessarily prove that (he) (she) joined the conspiracy. You may, however, consider this evidence, with all the other evidence, in deciding whether the government proved beyond a reasonable doubt that (name) joined the conspiracy. Comment See 2 O’Malley et al, supra, § 31.05. For variations in other Circuits, see Sixth Circuit §
In United States v. Brodie, 403 F. 3d 123, 147 (3d Cir. 2005), the Third Circuit also stated that, “the government, in proving a conspiracy under 18 U.S.C. § 371, was required to prove at least the degree of criminal intent necessary for the underlying substantive offense of violating the American Cuban embargo. See United States v. Feola, 420 U.S. 671, 686. . . .” The mental state required for the underlying offense in Brodie was specific intent, which “[i]n the context of [that] offense ... demands that the government prove that a defendant had general knowledge of the law which forbade his actions and acted with the specific intent to circumvent that law.” Brodie, 403 F.3d at 147. (Revised 12/09) 6.18.371F Conspiracy – Acts With regard to the fourth element of conspiracy – overt acts – the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that during the existence of the conspiracy at least one member of the conspiracy performed at least one of the overt acts described in the indictment, for the purpose of furthering or helping to achieve the objective(s) of the conspiracy. The indictment alleges certain overt acts. The government does not have to prove that all of these acts were committed or that any of these acts were themselves illegal. Also, the government does not have to prove that (name) personally committed any of the overt acts. The government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that at least one member of the conspiracy committed at least one of the overt acts alleged in the indictment and committed it during the time that the conspiracy existed, for the purpose of furthering or helping to achieve the objective(s) of the conspiracy. You must unanimously agree on the overt act that was committed.