Xref: utzoo comp.sys.amiga:72149 misc.legal:22733 alt.censorship:1046
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!apple!well!mingo
From: mingo@well.sf.ca.us (Charles Hawkins Mingo)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga,misc.legal,alt.censorship
Subject: Re: Conspiracy law.
Summary: Unilateral conspiracies.
Message-ID: <21727@well.sf.ca.us>
Date: 19 Nov 90 23:48:00 GMT
References: <1990Nov14.183455.1825@eng.umd.edu> <1990Nov14.195928.23480@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu> <1990Nov14.215205.7454@eff.org>
Distribution: usa
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link, Sausalito, CA
Lines: 24

mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) writes:
>
>Mere advocacy of an illegal activity is not conspiracy. Under federal
>law, a conspiracy requires two or more people who plan to commit a crime,
>plus an overt act by one of the people that furthers the plan.

	This may be expressed a little too broadly.  Under federal law,
	a "unilateral conspiracy" occurs when an individual "conspires" with
	someone (such as a police agent or informant) who has not actually
	"agreed" to the plan.

	Also, the "overt act" requirement can be overstated.  Virtually *any*
	act qualifies, even an inherently innocent one.

>Thus, an isolated individual never can be convicted of conspiracy under
>federal law, even if he creates a plan and acts in furtherance of it.

	I'm not sure what you mean by "an isolated individual cannot be
	convicted."  An "isolated individual" *can* be convicted even if the
	coconspiritor is never brought to justice; on the other hand, it is
	true that the coconspiritor must exist.

	Note that a person who "creates a [criminal] plan and acts in further-
	ance of it" is usually guilty of *attempting* the crime in question.