Defining the Sprawling Arms of Conspiracy: The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit Corrrectly Addressed the Clean Breast Doctrine as it Affects withdrawal from a Conspiracy in United States v. Grimmett
Loading...
Authors
Grace, Ryan Thomas
Issue Date
2002
Volume
35
Issue
Type
Journal Article
Language
Keywords
Alternative Title
Abstract
INTRODUCTION|During the twentieth century, the crime of conspiracy expanded into a weapon used by law enforcement agencies against dangerous organizations and criminal group activity. The crime of conspiracy, which is traditionally defined as an agreement between two or more people with the intent to commit an unlawful act, serves two important functions in the legal system. First, similar to attempt and solicitation law, conspiracy law punishes preparatory conduct before it develops into a substantive offense. Therefore, conspiracy law gives law enforcement officials another tool to use in crime prevention. Second, criminal conspiracy law counters special dangers inherent in criminal group activity. These special dangers regard the enhanced likelihood a criminal action will ensue when an agreement is made to commit a criminal act. The greater likelihood of action stems from the psychological pressures against withdrawal, which are inherent in the dynamics of criminal group activity.|Similar to most crimes, prosecution for conspiracy requires culpability. Culpability is the concurrence of an evil mind (mens rea) and an evil act (actus reus). Furthermore, like most other crimes, both mens rea and actus reus must exist concurrently for the crime of conspiracy to exist because evil thoughts alone are insufficient for liability. Consequently, culpability for conspiracy can be negated by evidence showing an individual has withdrawn from the conspiracy. Addressing the act of withdrawal, the United States Supreme Court stated that affirmative acts contrary to the events giving rise to the conspiracy and communicated in a way to notify other conspirators of an individual's cessation in the conspiracy are enough to establish withdrawal and commence the statute of limitations...
Description
Citation
35 Creighton L. Rev. 433 (2001-2002)
Publisher
Creighton University School of Law