WASHINGTON, Nov. 12 (UPI) -- The Supreme Court heard argument Tuesday on when a conspiracy ends.
The case has ramifications beyond that simple core.
A lower court has ruled that those who join an illegal enterprise after the government frustrates its purpose are not guilty of conspiracy, a ruling that prosecutors say will create havoc in the courts.
In asking that the high court review the ruling in an Iowa drug case, the federal government told the justices that an eventual decision would have a profound effect on a variety of investigations, from violent crime to terrorism.
In the early morning hours of Nov. 18, 1997, a Nevada police officer stopped a northbound flatbed truck occupied by Manuel Sotelo and Ramiro Arce.
The truck turned out to be carrying 369 pounds of marijuana and nearly 15 pounds of cocaine, with a street value of between $10 million and $12 million.
The men told police they were supposed to drive the truck to Nampa, Idaho, and leave it at a mall.
Arce agreed to cooperate with a police sting. Once officers had parked the truck at the Nampa mall, Arce called an Arizona pager number.
When a caller returned the page, Arce told him the truck's location and was told the caller would send "a muchacho to come and get the truck."
About three hours later, Francisco Jimenez Recio and Adrian Lopez-Meza drove up to the parked truck. Recio got out of the car and into the truck, and he and Lopez-Meza drove west on different back roads.
Eventually, police decided to stop them.
A federal grand jury in Idaho indicted the two for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine and marijuana, and with conspiring to possess cocaine and marijuana.
The two men were found guilty on both counts and a federal judge refused motions that the men be acquitted because of lack of evidence.
However, a divided appeals court panel reversed the judge, ruling 2-1 that the government had presented no evidence the two men were involved in a conspiracy before the drugs were seized in Nevada.
The panel majority said the men appeared to have been hired at the last minute, and downplayed evidence that both had pagers when they were arrested.
When the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit refused to hear the case, the Justice Department asked for Supreme Court review.
The department pointed to a 1957 Supreme Court precedent that said a conspiracy agreement alone "determines the duration of the conspiracy."
As long as the agreement lasts, the conspiracy lasts.
The appeals court ruling "discourages legitimate law enforcement methods that can be of vital importance not only in drug cases, but also in violent crime, terrorism and other contexts in which prosecution of the conspirators and frustration of their goals are both critical objectives."
Tuesday, Deputy Solicitor General Michael Dreeban reinforced that view before the Supreme Court.
Speaking for Recio and Lopez-Mexas, Boise attorney Karl Shurtliff had to contend with a vocally skeptical Supreme Court.
A conspiracy ends with "government intervention that frustrates its objectives," he said.
What about a group that tries to rob an empty bank, asked Justice Antonin Scalia. That conspiracy was frustrated before it began. Does that mean the men are not guilty, Scalia said.
Justice Stephen Breyer said suppose "A, B, C and D" form a conspiracy. They're later joined by a government undercover agent. Later, three more people join. Why aren't the last three guilty, Breyer asked.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was just as skeptical.
"If these two defendants (in Idaho) didn't know there had been a seizure, why should their guilt turn on this factor?"
Shurtliff contended, "These two individuals (in Idaho) joined at the behest of the government,"
But Chief Justice William Rehnquist told him that issue wasn't before the court. The justices had agreed only to decide whether a conspiracy ends when its purpose is frustrated.
A decision should be handed down in the case within the next several months.
--
(01-1184, United States of America vs. Recio and Lopez-Meza.)
