THE POWER OF A CONSPIRACY CHARGE
A federal conspiracy charge is among the most powerful and easiest to charge arising from federal criminal law. A conspiracy is defined most simply as an agreement between two or more people to commit an illegal act. A federal prosecutor has to ability to combine a number of defendants together on minimal evidence that shows they have some common criminal purpose. When defendants are combined like this, it also allows for relaxed rules of admissibility of evidence where the prosecutor will have an easier time admitting alleged acts or statements of conspirators against one another. This also allows for big, multi-defendant trials which make it exceedingly difficult to separate a defendant from the group of alleged co- conspirators. This power to join defendants together led to the United States Supreme Court having to take action to limit and define what the proper scope of conspiracy laws are.
EXAMINING THE RULING IN KOTTEAKOS V UNITED STATES
More than 70 years ago, the United States Supreme Court looked to limit and define the proper scope of federal conspiracy law through the case of Kotteakos v United States. The Supreme Court held in Kotteakos that in order to properly charge a single conspiracy, all co-conspirators that are linked with a common individual must also be linked with each other. If the co- conspirators are not linked to each other in some way, then this would result in a number of smaller conspiracies. The decision in Kotteakos saw the Supreme Court liken a conspiracy to a wheel where the “hub” is the common individual and the “spokes” are each individual conspirator. Each “spoke” is connected to a common “hub.” In order for them to all be together in a single conspiracy it would require a “rim” to connect them. This has come to be known as the “hub, spokes, and rim” defense to conspiracy. The whole point of the holding in Kotteakos is that in order for people to be in a conspiracy with each other it has to be shown that they knowingly entered into an agreement together to commit a crime. When people are accused of being in a conspiracy together, they are often tried together in a trial. Aside from the potentially higher punishment for actions of the whole conspiracy, this practice also subjects people to unfair prejudice when they aren’t part of a grander conspiracy as alleged.
HOW DOES THIS AFFECT ME?
If you are being investigated or have been indicted on a federal conspiracy charge, then this can affect you directly. It is common for federal prosecutors to attempt to charge one large single conspiracy instead of multiple smaller conspiracies as the punishments are higher and combining defendants allows for an easier trial for the government. You should not be held accountable for the actions of unknown “partners” in a conspiracy that you did not agree to be a part of. A recent example of this has appeared in the college admissions case of
United States v Sidoo, where 38 parents were charged with a conspiracy when they were alleged to all independently work with the same person who promised to get their kids into prestigious and highly selective universities through fraudulent means. In this case, the defense has argued that the “hub and spokes” are not connected together with a “rim,” and as such, should be charged as smaller, individual conspiracies. A dozen of these parents have fought these charges and are scheduled for trial, while others have accepted various plea agreements. If you are facing a criminal charge for conspiracy or have any questions about federal conspiracy law, then it is imperative that you seek the advice of an experienced federal conspiracy attorney as soon as possible.
