The Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6 - The Conspiracy to prevent constitutional review and exposure of the injustice caused and ignored by an improperly and unlawfully enacted 'law'.
THE CONSPIRACY STATUTE
Title 18 U.S.C. § 371
The Elements
1. Two or More Persons
2. Knowledge and Intent
3. The Agreement
4. Unlawful or Fraudulent Means or Objective
5. The Overt Act
.Parties To Criminal Offenses
.AIDING AND ABETTING (18 U.S.C. § 2( A ))
.CAUSING THE COMMISSION OF A CRIME (18 U.S.C. § 2( B ))
.ACCESSORY AFTER THE FACT (18 U.S.C. § 3)
.MISPRISION OF FELONY (18 U.S.C. § 4)
The crime of conspiracy was created because of the inherent dangers posed to society when two or more individuals join together to violate the law. A person who joins with others to commit a crime strengthens the criminal scheme and enhances the potential success of the scheme. Furthermore,
once an individual joins with others, that person is less likely to change their mind than one who has made a solitary decision to violate the law. Once conspiracies are formed, there is the danger they will get out of control, recruit other criminals, and become more dangerous and difficult to immobilize. For all these reasons, the identification and targeting of multi-defendant criminal networks is essential to successful law enforcement.
| To conceal the denial of constitutionally protected rights and ignore injustice, every judge and lawyer in the United States are all mandated by the same confidentiality as soon as they become lawyers./ They must follow the Law - the Rules of Professional Conduct. |
Advantages
In any investigation involving two or more defendants, agents should consider the following advantages of a conspiracy charge:
1. Get Beyond The First Layer
In many cases the organizers and brains behind a criminal organization insulate themselves from those members whose actions are more visible, thus making them less susceptible to getting caught.
| The Author, the American Bar Association is insulated behind each state supreme court which enacted their rules into LAW. |
The law of conspiracy enables the investigator to get beyond the first layer of visible members
of a conspiracy and immobilize the entire criminal organization.
2. Past, Present, and Future
The criminal investigator will often initiate a case on a criminal organization where the objectives of the conspiracy are still ongoing (a fraudulent investment scheme). In other cases, the goal of the conspiracy will have already been accomplished OR the criminal objectives may still be in the planning stage.
In a conspiracy investigation the investigator can go in any direction, past, present or future. Because the conspiracy statute is pro-active in nature, criminals may be apprehended prior to any substantive criminal offense being consummated.
| So an ongoing national conspiracy started at different times in each state. Rollout by state. |
3. Allow Juries to See the Entire Operation
In presenting a conspiracy case to a jury the prosecution can describe the roles and relevant conduct for each member of the conspiracy. The entire scope of the operation can be spelled out, even though some of the members of the conspiracy may not be on trial. An additional benefit to a conspiracy charge is that multiple defendants can be tried at the same time. Having the members of the conspiracy sitting together as the prosecution describes each one‘s role in the criminal enterprise
strengthens the government‘s position that they were all acting in concert together, albeit some members had larger roles than others.
4. Use of the Grand Jury
Through the grand jury, the investigator can obtain documentary evidence not easily obtained without the power of a grand jury subpoena. Witnesses who are reluctant to provide information can be subpoenaed to testify before the grand jury.
Sworn testimony of witnesses can be preserved for trial or become the basis of a perjury charge.
Disadvantages
Developing a successful conspiracy investigation may be severely hampered due to certain limiting factors, many of which the investigator has no control over. Some of these disadvantages may be:
1. Time Consuming
In many conspiracy investigations, the overt acts that furthered the conspiracy were performed in the past. Further, members of the conspiracy take great pains to conceal their criminal scheme. It will be very time consuming for the criminal investigator to organize their goals, identify their targets, develop witnesses, corroborate the witnesses and gather evidence to strengthen the case.
| It will be more time consuming to address the injustice caused by the conspiracy to deny justice. |
2. Witness Difficulties
Successful conspiracy investigations depend on developing key witnesses. More often than not, the most knowledgeable witnesses are co-conspirators. Unfortunately, these witnesses are difficult to manage and control and often can be an embarrassment to the government. They are easily impeached and possess very little appeal to the jury. There will be times when even the hardest working investigator will be unable to provide enough corroboration to make these witnesses believable.
| The evidence is available on the court dockets for each case or appeal which was affected. |
3. No Instant Results
A primary goal of the conspiracy investigation is to prosecute all (or as many as possible) who willingly participated in the criminal venture. The larger the number of participants in a conspiracy, generally the longer it takes to develop the case. Consequently, there will not be the instant results commonly associated with single arrests for substantive offenses.
In spite of these disadvantages, the conspiracy investigation is one of the most effective weapons in the law enforcement officer‘s arsenal. It is designed to immobilize and eliminate those that bind together to strengthen their criminal endeavors. Remember, it was a conspiracy investigation that
prompted Richard M. Nixon to resign as president of the United States.
| A CONSPIRACY THAT BINDS PEOPLE TOGETHER TO STRENGTHEN THEIR CRIMINAL ENDEAVORS. EXACTLY. |
The Statute
A. Title 18 U.S.C. § 371 1
There are a number of federal statutes that criminalize certain types of conspiracies, such as 18 U.S.C. § 241 (Conspiracy Against Civil Rights) and 21 U.S.C. § 846 (Controlled Substance Conspiracy).
This class is concerned only with the general federal conspiracy statute, 18 U.S.C. § 371.
This statute reads as follows:
If two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to
defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose, and one or
more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each shall be fined
under this title or imprisoned not more than five years or both.
| When two or more lawyers and judges conspire to prevent the prosecution of judicial corruption... |
If, however, the offense, the commission of which is the object of the conspiracy, is a
misdemeanor only, the punishment for such conspiracy shall not exceed the maximum punishment provided for such misdemeanor.
The plain language of the statute prohibits two distinct types of conspiracies. First, it prohibits any conspiracy to violate a civil or criminal federal law. Second, the statute prohibits any conspiracy to defraud the United States or any agency of the United States, including conspiracies formed for the purpose of impairing, obstructing, or defeating the lawful functions of any department of the United States government.
The conspiracy violates the US Constitution. OK.
The conspiracy did not intend to impair, obstruct or defeat the US Govt. OK.
The conspiracy undermined the integrity of the judiciary, impacted the reputation of lawyers and caused an inability to address injustice in the entire judicial system.
The conspiracy destroyed people to the point where suicide was their only exit. |
The statute provides a maximum punishment of not more than five years, as well as a fine up to $250,000.00, but only if the intended or committed substantive offense is a felony. If the
offense committed or intended is a misdemeanor, the maximum punishment for the conspiracy charge cannot exceed the maximum possible punishment for the misdemeanor.
| Think per offense... over 25-30 years. |
B. The Elements
There are five essential elements the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt to establish a violation of §371. A conspiracy exists when:
- Two or More Persons
- Intentionally
- Agree
- To Violate Federal Law or Defraud the United States
and
- Commit an Overt Act in Furtherance of the Agreement
Once these elements have been met, the crime of conspiracy is COMPLETE.
| The Clerk of Courts filed an Opinion which denied the Court the opportunity to review the constitutional matter presented by the litigants. The misinformation, fraud and inaccuracies of the Per Curiam unsigned Opinion IS AN OVERT ACT intended to conceal the conspiracy. |
In other words, once a co-conspirator commits an overt act in furtherance of the agreement, all of the co-conspirators may be prosecuted for conspiracy, even if they take no further steps to accomplish their ultimate goal.
| That one Opinion/Action permits the prosecution of everyone involved in the conspiracy. Everyone. Every lawyer. Every Judge. Every court. Since the conspiracy began in the 80's. |
Two or More Persons
A conspiracy requires the participation of two or more persons.
The persons need to be capable of forming the necessary criminal intent to agree to the objects of the conspiracy. One person cannot be convicted of conspiring with himself, an undercover law enforcement officer, or a cooperating informant. Because a government agent or an agent of the
government (cooperating informant) does not truly intend to commit the ultimate crime of the conspiracy, they cannot be counted as a conspirator. Likewise, individuals who do not have the mental capacity to form the criminal intent to conspire may not be one of the required two or more persons in a conspiracy. Minors and mentally ill persons could fall into this category.
The two persons need not meet. They need not know each other‘s identities. But, they must be aware of, or must reasonably foresee of, each other‘s existence and roles. For example, in a conspiracy to hijack goods, the person who steals a tractor-trailer from a truck stop may not know the person on
the inside who advised when the tractor-trailer could be easily taken nor would he necessarily know the person who was purchasing the stolen goods. Further, as long as there are at least two members, a conspiracy continues even if the members change.
Knowledge and Intent
The government must prove that the defendant had knowledge of the conspiracy and intended to participate in it.
(a) Knowledge
To be a party to a conspiracy, an individual must know of the conspiracy‘s existence and its overall plan or purpose.
| The misinformation, fraud and inaccuracies of the Per Curiam Order demonstrates the authors knowledge of their assigned task in the conspiracy. |
However, each conspirator need not know all of the details of the plan. While the defendant must know that at least one other person is involved in the conspiracy (so that an agreement is possible), there is no requirement that the defendant know the identity, number, or role of all co-conspirators.
Secrecy and concealment are features of a successful conspiracy.| RULE 1.6 CONFIDENTIALITY OF INFORMATION. Secrecy and concealment are the very issue. |
Accordingly, the law allows the conviction of individuals without requiring that they have knowledge of all the details of the conspiracy or of all those participating in it.
(b) Intent
The defendant must intend to participate in the conspiracy. The government must present evidence that the defendant joined voluntarily, by agreeing to play some part with the intent to help it succeed.
The mere showing that a defendant was aware of the plan or that the defendant approved of the plan is not enough to prosecute, without showing intent to participate in the conspiracy. A defendant‘s intent may be proven through circumstantial evidence, such as the defendant‘s relationship with other members of the conspiracy, the length of the association between the members, the defendant‘s attitude and conduct, and the nature of the conspiracy. Acts committed by the defendant that furthered the objective of the conspiracy are strong circumstantial evidence that the defendant was a knowing and willing participant in the conspiracy.
| Each member of the Bar Association joined voluntarily and followed the mandate which permitted the injustice to continue unaddressed and unresolved. Those responsible for eh conspiracy mandated continued silence and disciplined any who dared try to expose the conspiracy. |
3. The Agreement
The essence of any conspiracy is the agreement.
Conspiracy is different than substantive crime. In substantive crime the act is criminal. In conspiracy, the mere agreement to violate the law becomes criminal once an overt act in
furtherance of the agreement takes place. Seldom, if ever, is there proof of a formal agreement. The agreement does not have to be put into words, either oral or written. The agreement is often established through circumstantial evidence and can be as loose as a mutual understanding.
| The Conspiracy was documented in the law, improperly enacted because it resulted in the loss of constitutional rights. Volumes of documents exist in every state which demonstrate the development of the 'agreement' in every state by the American Bar Association. |
Association with members of a conspiracy is helpful in establishing a defendant‘s willing participation; however, mere presence at the scene is not enough to show agreement. A subject can be present with other known conspirators without intending to join or further the objects of the conspiracy.
A subject can also do something to help the conspiracy without actually joining. For example, an individual may rent an apartment to members of a conspiracy. The conspirators use the apartment to set up their operation. As such, the apartment owner has aided the conspiracy. However, absent a showing that he had a stake in the venture (doubled the rent) or knew of the conspiracy and intended to help it by providing a hiding place, he has not joined in the agreement.
| So an organization of lawyers pretending to fight for Civil Liberties would help the conspiracy. The unions and organizations being created at the same time as the Rule became Law is evident. |
Mere presence and helping without joining in the agreement are common defenses to conspiracy charges. Efforts must be made to establish a defendant‘s joining in the agreement. This can be shown directly by co-conspirators‘ testifying about the defendant‘s role in the organization or indirectly by
documenting a series of acts or events that demonstrate the defendant acted in concert with and must have been in agreement with other members of the conspiracy.
4. Unlawful or Fraudulent Means or Objective
To successfully prosecute under § 371, either the objective of the conspiracy or the means to accomplish the objective must (1) be an offense against the United States or (2) tend to defraud the United States. If neither the objective, nor the means to accomplish the objective, violate federal law or tend to defraud the United States, prosecution under § 371 is not available.
| The means to accomplish the conspiracy - Violation of the rights guaranteed by the US Constitution AND making it illegal to prosecute judicial corruption and the resulting injustice violates federal law. |
This illustrates an important concept; the objective of the conspiracy does not have to be a crime. It is sufficient to show that the contemplated objective would impede, impair, defeat, or obstruct the proper functions of the United States Government.
This could be accomplished through a scheme such as bid-rigging or through an agreement to obstruct the regulatory functions of a government agency, such as the Internal Revenue Service, which is often a civil violation of law.
It is not a defense that the objective was factually impossible to achieve. For example, if the objective of the conspiracy is to kill an individual who, unknown to the conspirators, is already dead, then it is factually impossible for the conspirators to carry out their plan.
| While factually possible to accomplish (IT HAPPENED)... Who would believe they would actually do it and avoid exposure for over 25 years. |
However, the conspiracy charge was complete the moment the first overt act in furtherance of the agreement was committed.
| The First overt act.... or the latest overt act by the Clerk of Courts in the Third Circuit. |
5. The Overt Act
The final element in a conspiracy prosecution under §371 is that, following an agreement, one of the conspirators committed an overt act in furtherance of the agreement. The overt act demonstrates that the conspirators have moved from a thought crime to one of action.
Instead of simply talking about the crime, the conspirators have actually taken a step towards making it a reality. An overt act shows that the agreement is not dormant, but is actually being pursued by the conspirators.
| The misinformation, fraud and inaccuracies of the Per Curiam Order demonstrates the authors knowledge of their assigned task to conceal the exposure of the conspiracy. |
Only one overt act must be committed to complete the crime of conspiracy. An overt act is any act done for the purpose of advancing or helping the conspiracy. A single overt act is sufficient to complete the conspiracy for all members, including those who join the conspiracy after it has begun. The overt act must occur after the agreement. The government may not rely on acts committed before the agreement to complete the conspiracy.
Additionally, the overt act need not be criminal in nature to complete the conspiracy, but may, in fact, be entirely lawful.
| The Overt act of "The Per Curiam Opinion" is lawfully filed. It is also inaccurate, misleading, and represents a fraud upon the court. |
For example, the overt act may be preparatory in nature, such as buying a car or mask to use in a bank robbery. If the substantive offense is actually committed, that offense may be used as the overt act necessary to complete the conspiracy. For instance, if two persons agree to rob a bank and did so, the bank robbery would be the overt act necessary to complete the conspiracy.
III. The Law of Conspiracy
In addition to the elements to be proved in conspiracy cases, there is significant law you should know when undertaking a conspiracy investigation. The following sections provide the criminal investigator some additional legal principles to guide investigations.
The Doctrine of Merger/Double Jeopardy
A conspiracy charge is a separate and distinct offense from the crime being planned and does not merge with the substantive offense, should it ultimately be committed. The Doctrine of Merger holds that inchoate offenses (those committed to lead to another crime) such as solicitation and attempts to commit crimes merge into the substantive offense if that offense is committed. Conspiracy, an inchoate offense, does not merge into the substantive offense. In addition, conspiracy to commit a substantive offense has different elements than the substantive offense and will survive a double
jeopardy challenge when both are charged utilizing the exact same evidence.
Pinkerton Theory of Vicarious Liability
Conspirators are criminally responsible for the reasonably foreseeable acts of any co-conspirator that was committed in furtherance of the overall plan. This is known as the Pinkerton Theory of vicarious liability. For example, if the plan was to smuggle counterfeit computer software into the United States, bribing a U.S. Customs Inspector would be a reasonably foreseeable act. In such a case, each conspirator would be liable for the substantive act of bribery, regardless of who
actually committed the bribery. If an act was not a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the overall plan, a defendant could not be held liable for that act unless he or she was the individual who actually committed it. The benefit of this rule is that all foreseeable acts of the conspiracy can be introduced at trial even though those on trial may not have participated in the acts. Pinkerton v. United States, 328 U.S. 640 (1946).
Co-Conspirator‘s Statements
The Federal Rules provides, in pertinent part: of Evidence (Rule 801(d)(2)(E)) 2
A statement is not hearsay if ... the statement is offered against a party and is ... a statement by a co-conspirator of a party during the course of and in furtherance of the conspiracy.
Even though hearsay evidence is generally inadmissible, there are a variety of exclusions and exceptions to that rule. One of those exclusions is that everything said, done, or written by a conspirator during the existence of the conspiracy and in furtherance of the conspiracy is admissible against all co-conspirators. When deciding whether a co-conspirator‘s statement is admissible
under this rule, five questions must be asked:
Was there a Conspiracy? YES
Was the Defendant a Member of the Conspiracy? YES
Was the Person who made the Statement a Member of the Conspiracy? YES
Was the Statement made during the Conspiracy? YES
Was the Statement made in Furtherance of the Conspiracy? YES
If the answer to each of the above questions is yes, then the statement is admissible. If the answer to any of the above questions is no, then the statement is not admissible under this rule, although it may be admissible under another exception or exclusion to the hearsay rule. The co-conspirator, against whom the statement is admitted, need not have been present or even heard the statement when it was made.
| The logical reason for the disappearance of 55 Attorneys General from the Constitutional Challenge. Admissable evidence. As the AGs have been served with the documents, and have filed documents indicating their conference calls on the matter, plausible deniability is not likely a factor. |
Furthermore, any witness who heard the statement may testify regarding it, irrespective of whether the witness is a member of the conspiracy. Thus, if A and B conspire, and B makes statements to C during and in furtherance of the conspiracy, C may testify about B‘s statements at A‘s trial, even though C was not a member of the conspiracy. In contrast, things said or done by a conspirator only in his self-interests, not meant to help the conspiracy, are called ?frolics? and are not admissible
evidence against the conspiracy.
Likewise, a post-arrest statement is not admissible under this rule because the statement was not made during and in furtherance of the conspiracy.
Late Joiners to a Conspiracy
The law recognizes that an individual may join a conspiracy after it has begun but before it has been terminated.
Such an individual is referred to as a late joiner to the conspiracy. They do not have to commit an overt act, only join in the agreement. Late joiners take the conspiracy as they find it. Late joiners are criminally responsible; not only for the conspiracy charge, but for any reasonably foreseeable acts done by any co-conspirator while the late joiner is a member of the conspiracy.
Late joiners are not criminally responsible for the criminal offenses of co-conspirators committed prior to their joining the conspiracy. Nonetheless, the prior acts of the co-conspirators are admissible at the trial of the late joiner, in order to show the existence of the conspiracy.
| Were the late joiners informed before or after they were admitted to the practice of law. Or on a need to know basis. |
Withdrawal from a Conspiracy
Just as the law recognizes that individuals may join a conspiracy after it begins, the law also recognizes that individuals may withdraw from the conspiracy prior to its termination. Withdrawal from a conspiracy requires more than simply no longer participating. A valid withdrawal from a
conspiracy has two basic requirements. First, the individual must do some affirmative act inconsistent with the goals of the conspiracy. Unless a conspirator produces affirmative evidence
of withdrawal, his or her participation is presumed to continue.
| Rule 1.6 is for LIFE. There is no withdrawal from the mandate to maintain confidentiality. |
Second, the affirmative act must be reasonably calculated to be communicated to at least one other known conspirator or law enforcement personnel. Withdrawal is an affirmative defense that must be proved by the defendant.
| Rule 1.6 made it illegal to communicate the issue, AND at the same time made it illegal for law enforcement to take any action to address the issue had it been reported. |
If an individual validly withdraws from a conspiracy, the statute of limitations on the conspiracy charge for that individual will begin to run the date of the withdrawal. Further, the withdrawal of a conspirator does not generally change the status of the remaining members. The valid withdrawal of a
single conspirator from a two-person conspiracy however, will result in the termination of the conspiracy, because the requisite ?two or more persons? are no longer present. Once a valid withdrawal occurs, the withdrawing defendant will escape liability for any subsequent criminal acts of the remaining conspirators, but remains liable for conspiracy and for any criminal acts committed while a member of the conspiracy.
Only by withdrawing from the agreement before the commission of the overt act will the individual escape liability for the conspiracy charge.
Statute of Limitations (18 U.S.C. § 3282)
The statute of limitations for the crime of conspiracy is five years. Generally, the statute of limitations begins to run from the date the conspiracy is completed, terminated, or abandoned. Typically, the statute of limitations begins to run from the date the last overt act was committed in furtherance of the conspiracy (e.g., dividing the money from the bank robbery).
| As the actions relating to the conspiracy continue, the conspiracy is not completed, terminated or abandoned. The statute of limitations has yet to begin tolling. |
The conspiracy itself may, depending on the nature of the agreement, continue past achieving the objective, in order to conceal the crime or to destroy or suppress evidence. In such
cases, the statute of limitations would be extended and would not start to run until such time as the last overt act (i.e., the last act of concealment) occurs.
For substantive offenses committed during the time frame of the conspiracy, the statute of limitations begins to run from the date the offense was committed.
| The action which triggered the injustice for many was a fraud upon the court. As the court was acting without proper jurisdiction, the orders of the court are void ab initio. |
Venue
The Sixth Amendment requires that prosecution occur in the State and District wherein the crime shall have been committed.
| The Conspiracy should then be addressed in Philadelphia where the latest 'overt act' occurred. |
Because the legal basis for a conspiracy is an agreement and an overt act in furtherance of that agreement, venue for a conspiracy charge exists in the district where the agreement was entered into, or in any district in which an overt act in furtherance of the agreement was committed. Since the
act of one conspirator is an act of all conspirators, an act in a district by one will result in venue in that district for all conspirators, even where the others were never physically present in the district.
| Litigants in each federal district will need to seek relief in the district where the injustice, or 'error', occurred. |
If a substantive offense is committed, venue for the substantive offense will be in the district where it occurred. As a practical matter, cases are charged in the district where venue for both the conspiracy and the substantive offense overlap.
IV. Investigating Conspiracies
The general approach to conducting a conspiracy investigation is to identify the members within the organization along with their respective roles for achieving the criminal objectives. Criminals attempt to conceal their plans and avoid detection so recruiting and developing witnesses is critical to any conspiracy investigation. You will need to locate and obtain evidence to corroborate witnesses and support the theory of the case that the defendants were acting together in agreement, toward a common criminal objective.
To accomplish these goals, you need to be organized.
Documenting the activities of the organization and charting the members of the organization can simplify these tasks.
| Each state court should have the records required within the docket for each case. |
A. Chronology
Documenting the criminal activities of an organization is accomplished through the use of ?overt act sheets.
An overt act sheet is a single sheet of paper that summarizes an overt act one in furtherance of the conspiracy. It includes the date and synopsis of the overt act, the defendant(s) involved, the primary and corroborative witnesses and the type of evidence whether oral, documentary or physical. Maintaining a notebook compilation of overt acts in furtherance of the conspiracy will provide a chronology or time line of the conspiracy. This chronology is of utmost importance in presenting the case to an AUSA for prosecution and in identifying the weaknesses and strengths in the government‘s proofs.
B. Organizational Chart
Prepare an organizational chart identifying all known and ?unknown members of the organization. In identifying known members of the conspiracy, you should strive to determine each player‘s particular role in the criminal scheme. Identifying roles will assist in targeting the main members of the conspiracy.
Further, identifying member‘s role in the offense facilitates establishing how they all worked together to accomplish the criminal venture.
C. Recruit and Develop Witnesses
Always attempt to identify and recruit the broadest base of witnesses to ensure the most expansive and credible amount of testimony available. Be conscious of being compromised when interviewing witnesses and gathering evidence. When interviewing new witnesses, you should not instantly identify
the targets? of the investigation by name or showing them photo spreads of the subjects being investigated. Maintain the spirit of strict confidentiality with the witness and what they
disclose. Do not divulge the identity of other witnesses in the investigation even if the witness being interviewed knows their identity.
In most cases, the most knowledgeable witnesses will be members of the conspiracy themselves. Unfortunately these witnesses come with a lot of ?baggage? and are easily impeachable. They often have prior criminal histories, are testifying for some particular benefit to themselves and give
incomplete or inconsistent statements. Every effort must be made to corroborate these witnesses.
Generally speaking, witnesses can be discredited; documents don‘t lie. Extract details from witnesses and obtain documents to corroborate their testimony. Never cut corners when you have located documentary evidence that could become invaluable in corroborating your witness‘s testimony. Use the proper search warrant or subpoena to obtain evidence.
Statements made by co-conspirators in furtherance of the conspiracy are some of the most damaging evidence in a conspiracy prosecution. Make a concerted effort develop this testimony and corroborate it through supporting co-conspirator testimony and non-conspirator testimony. As always, any supporting documentary or physical evidence should be pursued. For example, a witness could testify to conversations she heard from a co-conspirator describing how he and a third co-conspirator murdered an individual who hadn‘t paid his drug debt.
Testimony from evidence technicians and the coroner as to where the shell casings were found and the
trajectories of the bullets entering the body would corroborate the co-conspirator witness‘s account of the shooting conversation to establish the defendant had to have been present to possess that particularized knowledge.
D. Locate and Acquire Evidence
Locate and acquire evidence in support of the witness‘s testimony. Utilize whatever law enforcement techniques are available to obtain evidence of the conspiracy. Use search warrants, grand jury subpoenas, trash pulls, evidence purchases, consensual recordings, ?clone pagers, wire-taps,
and evidence seized by other agencies to further the case. Bank accounts, credit cards, tax records, toll call records, photographs, real property records, airline tickets, car rentals, hotel records, vehicle, boat, aircraft registrations, to name a few, should all be explored in support of the investigation. The more you can independently corroborate each witness‘s testimony the greater the chances for a successful prosecution.
At times you will encounter a suspect who knowingly helps a conspirator commit a target crime, but it is unclear if the suspect has JOINED the conspiracy. Consider arresting that suspect for aiding & abetting the target crime.
V. Attempt to Commit a Crime
An attempt to commit a crime is a crime, although it is not defined by statute. To prove a person attempted to commit a crime, the government must show the defendant‘s intent to commit a crime together with the commission of an act that constitutes a substantial step towards commission of the
crime. The government‘s burden of proving the defendant took a substantial step toward commission of the crime protects a defendant from being convicted for mere thoughts, desires or motive.
The degree of a defendant‘s performance of a substantial act in furtherance of the illegal activity is a factual issue depending on the circumstances of each particular case.
Generally speaking, something less than a completed transaction supports an attempt, provided there is a substantial step toward completion of the crime.
It would seem that the Third Circuit Court of Appeals DID NOT PROVIDE THE DOCUMENTS to the judges assigned to the matter. The Result - A Per Curiam Order without any signatures affirming the District Courts dismissal of the matter even though the District Court's Opinion documented the failure to substantiate the decision to dismiss.
BUT THOSE CLIENTS are there at the request of the PUBLIC, the neglected client.
When you are left with no choice but to report the crimes to one of the co-conspirators involved with concealing the crimes, there is little hope of escape or survival.
Along comes Attorney General Kathleen Kane ending an investigation and saying nothing. CONFIDENTIALITY - mandated by LAW.
NJ Governor Chris Christie releases a report on BRIDGEgate through his lawyer.
The ethical and legal obligations of a lawyer are many. Lawyers are required to provide competent representation to their client.[1] Attorneys may not reveal information relating to the representation of a client without informed consent.[2] They cannot represent a client if there exists a concurrent conflict of interest.[3] A lawyer must protect the rights of persons not represented by counsel.[4]