United States v. Carlotta Santana Saavedra
1982 U.S. App. LEXIS 16389, 11 Fed. R. Serv. 1185, 684 F.2d 1293 (1982)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A member of a criminal conspiracy is vicariously liable for the substantive criminal acts committed by co-conspirators, provided those acts were done in furtherance of and during the conspiracy.
Facts:
- Inmates at the Los Angeles County Jail devised a scheme to fraudulently obtain money.
- The inmates telephoned individuals, posed as law enforcement or bank security personnel, and tricked them into revealing their credit card numbers.
- Using the stolen credit card numbers, the inmates would call Western Union and order money orders to be sent to specific locations.
- Yvonne Saavedra acted as an "outside person," picking up the fraudulent money orders from Western Union offices using aliases like 'Carlotta Santana' and presenting false identification.
- Saavedra then deposited the majority of the money into the jail accounts of the inmate co-conspirators.
- On November 10, 1977, Saavedra was arrested at a Western Union office while signing for a money order under the false name Carlotta Santana.
- A piece of paper retrieved from an inmate after a fraudulent phone call bore Saavedra's alias, 'Carlotta Santana,' connecting her to the inside operation.
Procedural Posture:
- Yvonne Saavedra was charged in U.S. District Court with one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud and three substantive counts of wire fraud.
- A jury was impaneled and sworn on September 30, 1980.
- Following suppression hearings, a request for the judge to recuse himself, and continuances, the trial commenced on October 28, 1980, twenty-nine days after the jury was sworn.
- The jury returned a verdict finding Saavedra guilty on all counts.
- Saavedra (appellant) appealed her judgments of conviction to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, arguing multiple trial errors.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a defendant who is found guilty of conspiracy vicariously liable for the substantive criminal acts committed by co-conspirators in furtherance of the conspiracy, even if the defendant did not directly participate in those specific acts?
Opinions:
Majority - East, District Judge
Yes. A defendant is vicariously liable for the substantive acts of her co-conspirators whether or not she directly participates in such acts, so long as those acts are committed pursuant to and in furtherance of the conspiracy. The court reasoned that once the jury found Saavedra guilty of being a member of the conspiracy, she became legally responsible for the criminal acts her co-conspirators committed to advance the scheme. Therefore, even if Saavedra only picked up the money orders and did not personally make the phone calls that 'caused' the wires to be sent, she is still liable for the substantive crime of wire fraud committed by the inmates. The court also rejected Saavedra's other claims, finding no Sixth Amendment speedy trial violation due to the short and non-prejudicial delay, and ruling that testimony about the fraudulent phone calls was not inadmissible hearsay because it was offered to prove the method of the scheme, not the truth of the callers' statements.
Analysis:
This case provides a clear application of co-conspirator vicarious liability, often referred to as the Pinkerton doctrine. It demonstrates that a defendant's role in a conspiracy, even if limited to one part of the scheme, makes them legally responsible for all other foreseeable crimes committed by their partners to achieve the conspiracy's goal. This precedent solidifies that prosecutors do not need to prove a specific defendant personally committed every element of a substantive crime if they can first prove the defendant was a knowing member of a conspiracy that did. This principle significantly broadens the scope of criminal liability for individuals who participate in criminal enterprises.
