United States v. Josephine Ledezma (92-6683) and Terry Zajac (93-5182)
26 F.3d 636 (1994)
Rule of Law:
An individual cannot be criminally liable for aiding and abetting a substantive crime that was already completed before their involvement. Actions taken after a crime's completion may constitute a different offense, but they do not satisfy the elements for accomplice liability for the original crime.
Facts:
- Josephine Ledezma recruited Jeffrey and Eldon Ferrer to drive a van containing 351 kilograms of cocaine from Los Angeles to Washington, D.C.
- On November 23, 1990, a sheriff's deputy in Memphis, Tennessee, stopped the van, discovered the cocaine, and arrested the Ferrer brothers.
- After the police seized the drugs, law enforcement arranged for the Ferrers' father, Robert Ferrer, to continue with the van in a controlled delivery to Amarillo, Texas.
- Several days after the Ferrer brothers had originally departed Los Angeles, Terry Zajac joined the conspiracy and helped another member, Castellano, move a separate stash of 244 kilograms of cocaine.
- After the controlled delivery was completed, Robert Ferrer returned to California.
- Zajac met Robert Ferrer in a restaurant parking lot and paid him $3,500 for the delivery, stating that "we did a good job and that everybody was happy."
Procedural Posture:
- Terry Zajac was indicted in federal district court for conspiracy to possess cocaine with intent to distribute and for aiding and abetting possession of 351 kilograms of cocaine with intent to distribute.
- At the close of evidence at trial, Zajac moved for a judgment of acquittal, which the district court denied.
- A jury found Zajac guilty on both the conspiracy count and the aiding and abetting count.
- The district court sentenced Zajac to 292 months of imprisonment.
- Zajac (appellant) appealed his conviction and sentence to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
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 defendant's act of paying a courier for a drug delivery, which occurs after law enforcement has already seized the drugs and the crime of possession is complete, constitute aiding and abetting the possession of those drugs with intent to distribute?
Opinions:
Majority - Ryan, Circuit Judge
No. A defendant cannot be convicted of aiding and abetting a crime that was already completed. To be liable for aiding and abetting under 18 U.S.C. § 2, a defendant must associate with the criminal venture and participate in it as something they wish to bring about, seeking by their action to make it succeed. One cannot assist in a crime that is already an accomplished fact. Here, the substantive offense of possession of the 351 kilograms of cocaine was completed when the police seized the van and arrested the couriers. Zajac's subsequent payment to Robert Ferrer occurred after the crime was over and therefore could not have assisted or encouraged the commission of that possession offense. While this act may have constituted a different crime, such as accessory after the fact, it does not make him an aider and abettor to the original possession.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the critical temporal element required for accomplice liability, clarifying that aiding and abetting must occur before or during the commission of the principal offense. The court's holding prevents the government from stretching aiding and abetting liability to cover post-crime conduct, such as paying off participants after the fact. This forces prosecutors to charge more specific offenses, like accessory after the fact, for actions taken to conceal a crime or assist perpetrators after the underlying substantive crime is complete, thereby maintaining a clear distinction between different forms of criminal liability.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: United States v. Josephine Ledezma (92-6683) and Terry Zajac (93-5182) (1994)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"