United States v. Rosado-Fernandez
614 F.2d 50 (1980)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A party to a continuing conspiracy may be held legally responsible for a substantive offense committed by a co-conspirator in furtherance of the conspiracy, even if that party did not directly participate in or have knowledge of the substantive offense.
Facts:
- On January 3, 1979, undercover DEA Agent John Lawler met with Jose Borges at Borges' residence to arrange the purchase of three kilos of cocaine.
- Borges quoted a price, made a phone call in Spanish, and arranged to meet Lawler later that evening at a restaurant with his supplier.
- At the restaurant, Borges introduced Agent Lawler to his supplier, Angel Rosado.
- In Borges' presence, Rosado discussed the sale of cocaine with Lawler, stating he had 40 kilos available and agreeing on the terms of delivery.
- Borges concurred with the arrangement that only Rosado and Lawler would be present for the actual transaction.
- The next day, Lawler and Rosado finalized the deal over the phone and met at the home of a third co-defendant, Nelson Garcia.
- At Garcia's home, Rosado produced a quantity of white powder which a field test indicated was cocaine, at which point arrests were made.
Procedural Posture:
- Jose Borges and Angel Rosado-Fernandez were indicted in U.S. District Court (trial court) on charges of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine and possession with intent to distribute cocaine.
- Following a trial, a jury found both Borges and Rosado guilty on all counts.
- Borges and Rosado, as appellants, appealed their convictions to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence.
- The United States is the appellee.
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 member of a conspiracy legally responsible for the substantive offense of possession of a controlled substance committed by a co-conspirator in furtherance of the conspiracy, even if that member never had actual physical possession of the substance?
Opinions:
Majority - Ainsworth, Circuit Judge
Yes. A party to a conspiracy is responsible for a substantive offense committed by a co-conspirator in furtherance of the conspiracy. The court affirmed the convictions, reasoning that under the doctrine established in Pinkerton v. United States, once a conspiracy and a defendant's knowing participation in it are proven, that defendant is guilty of substantive acts committed by co-conspirators to advance the conspiracy's goals. The evidence established that Borges organized the venture, set up the meeting between the buyer (Lawler) and the supplier (Rosado), and was present during the negotiations. Although Borges was not present for the final transaction and never physically possessed the cocaine, Rosado's possession was an act committed in furtherance of the conspiracy Borges had joined. Therefore, Borges is vicariously liable for Rosado's possession.
Analysis:
This case serves as a straightforward application and reaffirmation of the Pinkerton doctrine of co-conspirator liability. It underscores that a defendant's role in a conspiracy does not need to be central or involve participation in every stage of the criminal enterprise to expose them to liability for all foreseeable acts committed by others within the conspiracy. The decision reinforces that withdrawal from a conspiracy is an affirmative act, and merely being absent when a substantive crime is committed is not a defense. For prosecutors, this principle remains a powerful tool for holding all members of a criminal organization accountable, from organizers to those who execute the final acts.
Unlock the full brief for United States v. Rosado-Fernandez