United States v. Jimenez Recio
537 U.S. 270 (2003)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A conspiracy does not automatically terminate as a matter of law when the government frustrates its objective, making the objective impossible to achieve, if the conspirators are unaware of the government's intervention.
Facts:
- On November 18, 1997, police in Nevada stopped a truck and seized a large quantity of illegal drugs.
- The two drivers of the truck agreed to cooperate with the police to conduct a sting operation.
- Law enforcement officials, along with the drivers, took the truck to its original destination at a mall in Idaho.
- The drivers paged a contact, who stated that someone would be sent to retrieve the truck.
- Several hours later, Francisco Jimenez Recio and Adrian Lopez-Meza arrived at the mall in a separate car.
- Jimenez Recio got into the truck and drove it away, while Lopez-Meza followed in the car.
- Police subsequently stopped both vehicles and arrested Jimenez Recio and Lopez-Meza.
Procedural Posture:
- Francisco Jimenez Recio and Adrian Lopez-Meza were charged in federal district court with conspiracy to possess and distribute illegal drugs.
- A jury convicted them at a first trial.
- The trial judge, bound by Ninth Circuit precedent (U.S. v. Cruz), determined the jury instructions were erroneous and ordered a new trial.
- At the second trial, a new jury convicted both defendants again under instructions requiring proof they joined the conspiracy before the drugs were seized.
- The defendants (appellants) appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, arguing the evidence was insufficient to support their convictions under the Cruz rule.
- A Ninth Circuit panel reversed the convictions, finding the evidence insufficient to prove the defendants joined the conspiracy before the government seized the drugs.
- The United States (petitioner) sought and was granted a writ of certiorari from the U.S. Supreme Court to review the validity of the Ninth Circuit's legal rule on conspiracy termination.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a conspiracy automatically terminate as a matter of law when the government frustrates its objective, making it impossible to achieve, even if some conspirators are unaware of this impossibility?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Breyer
No. A conspiracy does not automatically terminate simply because the government has defeated its objective. The essence of a conspiracy is the agreement to commit an unlawful act, which is a distinct evil that exists whether or not the substantive crime is completed. Where conspirators are unaware that their objective has been frustrated by law enforcement, the dangers of the criminal combination persist, as does the criminal agreement itself. This holding aligns with the views of nearly all other courts and commentators, which recognize that impossibility of success is not a defense to conspiracy. The Ninth Circuit's rule to the contrary, which could threaten legitimate law enforcement sting operations, stems from a misreading of precedent and is hereby rejected.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Justice Stevens
Although the jury instruction based on the Ninth Circuit's rule was erroneous, the Court should not have decided this issue. The Government failed to preserve its challenge by not objecting to the jury instruction at trial or questioning the validity of the precedent on its initial appeal. The Government's failure to raise the issue in a timely manner, only bringing it up in a petition for rehearing en banc, means it should have forfeited the right to have the Supreme Court review it. The prosecutor, like the defendant, should be required to adhere to procedural rules.
Analysis:
This decision resolves a circuit split by rejecting the Ninth Circuit's unique 'automatic termination' rule for conspiracies. The ruling solidifies the traditional common law view that the core of a conspiracy is the agreement, not the successful completion of the criminal objective. By clarifying that impossibility is not a defense when conspirators are unaware of it, the Court strengthens the ability of law enforcement to use sting operations to identify and prosecute all members of a criminal enterprise, even those who join after the government has secretly intervened. This shifts the legal focus from the objective feasibility of the criminal plan to the subjective intent and agreement of the conspirators.
Unlock the full brief for United States v. Jimenez Recio