537 U.S. 270, 123 S.Ct. 819, 154 L.Ed.2d 744 (2003)
On November 18, 1997, police stopped a truck in Nevada and seized a large stash of illegal drugs.1 With the cooperation of the truck's two drivers, the government arranged a sting operation by taking the truck to a mall in Idaho.2 The drivers paged a contact who said he would call someone to retrieve the truck.3
Three hours later Francisco Jimenez Recio and Adrian Lopez-Meza arrived at the mall in a car.4 Jimenez Recio drove the truck away while Lopez-Meza drove the car in a similar direction. Police stopped both vehicles and arrested both men.5
A federal grand jury indicted Jimenez Recio, Lopez-Meza, and the two original drivers on charges of conspiring to possess and distribute unlawful drugs.6 A jury convicted all four defendants at the first trial.7
The trial judge ordered a new trial for Jimenez Recio and Lopez-Meza after concluding that the jury instructions had been erroneous under Ninth Circuit precedent.8 The second jury again convicted the two men.9
Jimenez Recio and Lopez-Meza appealed. The Ninth Circuit reversed their convictions, finding the evidence insufficient to show they joined the conspiracy before the Nevada seizure.10 The government petitioned for certiorari, which the Supreme Court granted.11
Whether a conspiracy ends as a matter of law when the government frustrates its objective?12
The essence of a conspiracy is an agreement to commit an unlawful act.13 That agreement is a distinct evil which may exist and be punished whether or not the substantive crime ensues.14 A conspiracy does not automatically terminate simply because the Government, unbeknownst to some of the conspirators, has defeated the conspiracy's object.15
No. On November 18, 1997, police stopped a truck in Nevada and seized a large stash of illegal drugs.16 With the cooperation of the truck's two drivers, the government arranged a sting by taking the truck to a mall in Idaho.17 Jimenez Recio and Lopez-Meza arrived three hours later, with Jimenez Recio driving the truck away and Lopez-Meza driving the car in a similar direction.18 Although the government had frustrated the objective of drug distribution by seizing the drugs, the defendants were unaware of that fact and the underlying agreement persisted.19
The special dangers of conspiracy, including the increased likelihood of other crimes and the decreased probability that the individuals will depart from their path of criminality, therefore remained.20
The Ninth Circuit's automatic-termination rule is erroneous.21
Related opinions on this issue
Justice Stevens agrees that the jury instruction requiring the government to prove the defendants joined the conspiracy before the seizure was erroneous.22 He declines to reach the validity of the Cruz rule on procedural grounds.23 The government neither objected to the erroneous instruction at trial nor challenged the Cruz decision on appeal to the Ninth Circuit.24
It raised the issue only in its petition for rehearing en banc.25 In his view the prosecutor, like the defendant, should be required to turn square corners.26