Prof. Pedro A. Malavet, Evidence, Exam, Fall 2010

Before the exam starts, you may read the instructions, AND COUNT TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU HAVE ALL SIXTEEN (16) PAGES, AND YOU SHOULD WRITE YOUR EXAM NUMBER ON EVERY PAGE. IF YOU WILL USE A LAPTOP DURING THE EXAM, YOU MUST LOG INTO EXAM SOFT AT THE START OF THE TEST. OTHERWISE, DO NOT GO BEYOND PAGE THREE (THE END OF THE INSTRUCTIONS) OR READ ANY OTHER PART OF THE EXAM BEFORE YOU ARE INSTRUCTED TO START.

EXAM SOFT USERS MUST LOG INTO THE SYSTEM AT THE START OF THE EXAMINATION AND REMAIN IN THE SOFTWARE’S ANSWER-ONLY ENVIRONMENT FOR THE ENTIRE TEST PERIOD.

PRINTED EXAM ANSWERS WILL BE COLLECTED BY THE OFFICE OF STUDENT AFFAIRS. IF YOU FINISH EARLY, PLEASE GO TO THE OFFICE OF STUDENT AFFAIRS TO TURN IN THE COMPLETED EXAM. THE OFFICE OF STUDENT AFFAIRS WILL SEND PERSONNEL TO THE EXAM ROOM TO COLLECT EXAMS AT THE END OF THE EXAMINATION PERIOD.

Open Rules. “Open-Rules” means that you may have with you during the examination your required 2010 Mueller & Kirkpatrick Federal Rules of Evidence supplement. No substitutions will be allowed. Your supplements may be annotated with handwritten notes, but shall not have any attachments other than tabs to mark the location of specific material (the tabs may have on them numbers and the short titles of the referenced material and nothing more). Only handwriting may cover the blank spaces and the original printing on the supplements. The use of stick-on labels or paper, white-out or any other method to eliminate any of the original printing is prohibited. Other than the addition of handwritten notes and tabs, the supplements shall be in their original condition, no material may be added nor may any material be removed in any way. The supplements must be in their original bound form at the start of the examination. You may, however, tear them up during the examination if you find that makes them easier to use.

Honor/Conduct Code. You are bound by University Student Code of Conduct, the College of Law Honor Code and my rules. You certify compliance with all applicable rules by submitting your examination for grading. Violations of any applicable rule(s), should be reported to me or to pertinent authorities preferably before or during the examination. Serious violations of these rules shall result in a failing grade and in my referring the matter to the Honor Committee or to pertinent college or university conduct authorities. Less serious violations may result in a reduction in your final grade.

Read the Entire Exam. PLEASE READ THE ENTIRE EXAM BEFORE YOU BEGIN TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. The exam consists of twelve (12) True or False questions (Part I), for forty percent (40%) of the exam grade; and one (1) essay problem (Part II), for sixty percent (60%) of the exam grade. Please take these weights into account when you design your answer schedule.

Limited Space. All students must answer the True/False section by selecting the answer on the exam itself. You must answer the essay question in the space provided in the separate answer packet for handwriting or typing, or with your laptop using the Examsoft template. Do not use bluebooks. While I encourage you to outline the answers before you start to write, do not include scratch paper or any additional material with your completed exam. If you wish me to ignore any part of your answer, simply cross it out and I will ignore it. If you should run out of space because of cross-outs, you may use an equivalent amount of space on the back of the page in the answer packet.

Write Legibly. If I am unable to read your answer, it is as if you had written nothing. The exam must be written in permanent, dark-color ink; under penalty of a maximum ten-percent reduction in grade, you may not use pencils, erasable ink, or felt-tip markers.

Do Not Un-staple Pages. Do not take the exam apart (except that you may take the answer packet apart if you are using a typewriter). If you do, you MUST RE-STAPLE IT. You must also turn in every page of the examination, not just the ones that you use.

Scratch Paper. You may use blank scratch paper to outline your answers and take notes during the examination.

Typing. If you are typing your answer, you must stay within the margins and write only one line of text per line of space given to you.

Electronic Exam Taking. You may take the examination electronically, using specialized software that ensures that you can only use your laptop to write your essay answer. All laptops must log-into the Exam Soft system at the start of the examination and remain in the Exam Soft answer only environment for the entire examination period. Only the essay section may be answered electronically. For the other sections, you must write your answer on the exam itself. Answer space shall be limited to 1800 characters (including spaces and carriage returns) for each blank page in the examination. That is enough for 24 lines of double-spaced text in courier type, size 11 for each page. Since I provided 12 blank pages, the character limit is: 1800 x 12 = 21,600 characters. Each student is responsible for keeping track of answer length. The Exam Soft window constantly displays character count at the bottom of the screen. You may also use the length command to check character length. The penalty for exceeding the character limit will be a deduction from your essay score of a percentage equal to the percentage by which you exceeded the character limit.

Review. Exam review will start after I post the feedback memorandum on the course website on Thursday, February 3, 2011. Instructions for the review process will be included in the memorandum.

You must stop work four (4) hours after THE SIGNAL TO START. Completed examinations must be turned in to The office of student Affairs.

General Instructions For Part I

Select the best answer to the question presented. In this section, do not look for “perfect” answers, just the most correct one among the two alternatives available to you, in light of the question or statement presented, viewed in the context of the federal rules of evidence and related doctrines and caselaw as we discussed them in class. No explanations are required or allowed. Your answer will either be correct or incorrect, there will be no partial credit for incorrect answers. Circle the appropriate word or letter that you select as your response.

Do not assume any facts not given to you. While you are expected to draw reasonable conclusions from the facts given, you should not assume facts. In this section of the exam, “missing facts” suggest three possibilities: (1) you need to read the question again, i.e., “it’s in there somewhere,” (2) the fact is not necessary to the resolution of the question, or (3) I made a mistake and you may need to alert me to it (if you are convinced that this is what is going on, do not be afraid to ask the question of the proctors).

Do not look for issues that are not relevant to answering the question. The question asked determines the issues raised, read it carefully and answer the question I asked, with the best possible response among the alternatives given.

Applicable Rules. Assume that the applicable rules of evidence are the Federal Rules of Evidence, taken together with all the accompanying doctrines and caselaw as we discussed them in class.

Part I: True or False (40%)

In this section, you must select either “True” or “False.” The statement, as drafted, when read in the context of a Federal Trial, is either True or False.

1. In an appeal based on an evidentiary question, the appellant establishes that his counsel made a timely and well-grounded objection to the admission of certain evidence at trial. The appellate court also finds that the trial court erred in admitting the evidence. The appellate court is not required to reverse the lower court decision.

True False

2. Given the definition of hearsay of FRE 801(a), (b) and (c), when offered as proof that defendant Donald ‘Boon’ Schoenstein is guilty of Rioting, testimony that in the middle of a riot, his girlfriend Katy Faver, after observing Schoenstein running North on Main Street, said to approaching police officers —“Officers, officers, he went that way,” while pointing to the South on Main Street, is not hearsay.

True False

3. In a criminal trial, the defense wishes to impeach a witness during his testimony by asking during cross-examination about the witness’ convictions for crimes, for the purpose of attacking his character for truthfulness. This attack on the witness’ credibility is generally governed by Rule 609.

True False

4. In a civil trial arising out of an automobile accident, the plaintiff offers the testimony of an eyewitness who will identify the defendant, John Andrews, as the person driving the car that hit him and that the traffic light controlling Andrews’ lane was red. The defense objects. At the bench, so that the jurors cannot hear what is happening, the court rules that the evidence is relevant to the case and prejudicial for the defendant because it makes it more likely than it would be without that evidence that Andrews’ negligence was the proximate cause of the accident. The court should exclude this evidence under Rule 403.

True False

5. The law of evidence can never proceed on the basis that the jury will follow the court’s instructions where those instructions are clear.

True False

6. Defendant, Dr. Buckaroo Banzai, famed law professor, neurosurgeon, particle physicist, and rock-star, is charged with criminal destruction of property. Dr. John Whorfin is called as a witness by the defense in this criminal trial, with the expectation that he will testify that he, not the defendant, destroyed the valuable, highly-modified Ford F-150, by setting it on fire. Dr. Whorfin is a resident of the New Jersey Hospital for the Criminally Insane at Grover’s Mill. Prior to this offer of testimony, in separate proceedings alleging that he had murdered a hospital orderly during an escape attempt, Whorfin was found to be criminally insane and incompetent to stand trial. Among certain other personal quirks, he has publicly stated that he is a red Lectroid from Planet Ten and that he must return to the Eighth Dimension to rescue his army, in order to conquer the universe, starting with Planet Ten. The government objects that Whorfin is incompetent to testify. The court cannot possibly find Whorfin competent to testify.

True False

7. After certain evidence is found to be relevant, it may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by considerations of needless presentation of cumulative evidence.

True False

8. Before an expert witness is allowed to testify in that capacity, the judge must find by a preponderance of the evidence that her testimony is based upon sufficient facts or data, the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods, and the witness has applied the principles and methods reliably to the facts of the case.

True False

9. Given the definition of hearsay of FRE 801(a), (b) and (c), when offered as proof that Susan went to The Hub, Frank’s testimony that when Susan spoke to him during a class break earlier that day she told him that “she was going to go to The Hub at 10:30 P.M.” is not hearsay.

True False

10. In a criminal case, evidence of a pertinent trait of character may be offered by the defendant to prove he acted in conformity therewith at the time of the alleged offense.

True False

11. In a criminal prosecution for sexual assault, evidence of the defendant’s commission of another offense or offenses of sexual assault is not admissible to prove that the defendant acted in conformity therewith on a particular occasion.

True False

12. During civil commitment proceedings against University of Cincinnati junior Mary Jane Jones, her parents, who are trying to institutionalize her in a psychiatric treatment facility, present testimony that she told several classmates: “I am Tebow, Tim Tebow, Heisman Trophy Winner.” Given the definition of hearsay of Rule 801(a), (b) and (c), this evidence is hearsay.

True False

PART II: Essay PROBLEM (60%)

General Instructions for part II

Do not assume any facts not given to you. While you are expected to draw reasonable conclusions from the facts given, you should not assume facts. In this section of the exam, “missing facts” suggest three possibilities: (1) you need to read the question again, i.e., “it’s in there somewhere,” (2) I made a mistake and you may need to alert me to it (if you are convinced that this is what is going on, do not be afraid to ask the question), or (3) you need to indicate that you need to establish certain facts in order to provide a complete opinion. In this section of the exam, identifying missing facts that are necessary to a complete resolution of the issue may be precisely what you need to do in order to provide a proper response.

Do not look for issues that are not relevant to completing the exercise as instructed. The instructions determine the pertinent issues and how they must be handled in a carefully-crafted essay. Read them carefully and write accordingly. Evidence is a broad and complex course, I have crafted the issues narrowly, do not waste your time covering issues that the fact-pattern and your instructions as to the mandated result do not require you to address or resolve. No credit will be awarded for discussion of matters not relevant to the resolution of the problem.

Applicable Rules. Assume that the applicable rules of evidence are the Federal Rules of Evidence, together with the applicable common law, statutory, and constitutional rules, doctrines, and caselaw as you studied them in your Fall 2010 Evidence course.

Citations. Since this is an open-rule exam, citation should be made to the appropriate rule, especially the Federal Rules of Evidence, statutory or Constitutional provision, etc. Case citations will be judged on a “close-enough” basis. Please keep in mind that my annotated versions of the rules are helpful shorthand references.

Instructed Result. You must reach and fully justify the instructed result in order to earn any credit for your answer.

Limited Space. Please keep in mind that you are bound by the character length limit in Examsoft, and to the space provided in the hand- or typewriting packet.

Abbreviations. You may use reasonable abbreviations in your essay, provided that you identify the equivalent longhand the first time you make use of each abbreviation. You may not abbreviate the names of persons used in the problem.

United States v. Perez-Berrios

(Before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit)

Roberto Perez-Berrios was convicted by a jury of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute at least 100 kilograms of marijuana, 21 U.S.C.A. §§ 846, 841(b)(1)(B) (West 1999 & Supp. 2009) (Count One), and possession with intent to distribute of at least 100 kilograms of marijuana, 21 U.S.C.A. § 841(a), (b)(1)(B), 18 U.S.C. § 18 (2006). In this appeal, Perez-Berrios challenges his conviction and sentence, and the district court’s denial of his motion for a new trial.

The government’s trial evidence showed that in January 2007 a tractor-trailer truck was stopped in Mississippi because it lacked a visible Department of Transportation number. Inspection revealed that it contained rotting fruit and $1.2 million in cash in several suitcases. The driver, Jose Rios, cooperated and made two recorded telephone calls to his boss, Roberto Perez-Berrios, who was listed on documents in the truck’s cab as the owner of the trucking company. Perez-Berrios agreed to send money so that Rios could return to Texas and said he did not know “how much” was in the truck, but that Rios should get a receipt for it. Rios later recorded two conversations with co-defendant Juan Gonzalez in Texas, during which they discussed preparations for two more trips using a blue truck and transporting 2000 “pesos” to Charlotte, North Carolina. One of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) agents who conducted the investigation in Texas testified that the defendants used the term “pesos” to mean “pounds.”

On March 19, 2007, Rios recorded both audio and video tapes of a truck being loaded at a warehouse leased by Perez-Berrios. The lights in the warehouse were dimmed while packages were placed in the truck, then the lights were turned back on and a forklift was used to fill the truck with pallets of produce. Co-defendants Roberto Perez-Berrios, Gonzalez, Edgar Perez-Berrios, and David Arroyo were present. Perez-Berrios operated the forklift. Federal agents were also able to witness the loading depicted on the videotape and to testify at trial accordingly, but they could not hear what was being said. The audio and video tapes, however, clearly recorded the voices of Rios and all the co-defendants present at the warehouse and the investigating federal agents could identify the voices on the tapes and the persons depicted on the video based on their observations of the drug operation.

After Rios drove the truck away from the warehouse, federal agents kept the truck under surveillance and unloaded produce and more than 2000 pounds of marijuana from it some distance away. The marijuana was flown separately to North Carolina, while Rios drove the truck to Charlotte. When Rios reached Charlotte, the agents reloaded the marijuana onto the truck. Rios called Perez-Berrios on March 22, 2007, and was told to go to a warehouse leased by co-defendant Peter Smith. After the marijuana was unloaded by Smith, Juan Ruiz-Melendez, and others, they were arrested, as was co-defendant Yusuf Galib, who arrived to buy marijuana. Unaware of the arrests, Gonzalez and Arroyo sent a moneygram to Rios the same day.

In April and in late May 2007, Rios drove loads of marijuana to Indianapolis, Indiana, and to Durham, North Carolina, as directed by Perez-Berrios and Gonzalez. These trips were also monitored by federal agents. Roberto Perez-Berrios and Gonzalez were arrested in June 2007. Edgar Perez-Berrios became a fugitive. Roberto Perez-Berrios, Gonzalez, and Galib went to trial and were convicted on all counts. Arroyo, Smith, Ruiz-Melendez, and two other co-defendants entered guilty pleas; however, only Ruiz-Melendez testified at the trial. Rios was expected to testify, but disappeared shortly before the trial began.

Before trial, the government moved in limine to admit tape recordings of the monitored conversations between Rios and defendants Perez-Berrios and Gonzalez, as well as the audio and video recording of the truck loading taken by Rios on March 19, 2007. Perez-Berrios and Gonzalez opposed the admission of this evidence arguing that the statements were hearsay and not properly admissible under the Federal Rules of Evidence and that their admission would also violate their rights under the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment. The district court granted the government motion, finding that the evidence was admissible in spite of the defendants’ inability to cross-examine Rios or any other non-testifying declarant. Judge Whitney held that admission did not violate the Hearsay Doctrine or the Confrontation Clause because the recorded conversations were among co-conspirators, and the conspirators’ statements were therefore admissible against each declarant-defendant and against the declarant’s co-conspirators. The court also held that Rios’ statements were not hearsay because they were not offered for “the truth of the matter asserted,” but to provide a context for the defendants’ statements. The government requested a limiting instruction, to which the court agreed, in order to ensure that jury would use all admitted statements properly.

In reaching his decision to admit, District Judge Whitney found that there was an ongoing conspiracy between the indicted co-defendants, though the evidence did not clearly establish the relative positions of Perez-Berrios and Gonzalez within the conspiracy. While Rios initially identified Perez-Berrios as his boss, he apparently received instructions from both Perez-Berrios and Gonzalez relating to the actual delivery of marijuana on various trips he made. However, Perez-Berrios ostensibly owned the trucking company for which Rios was driving when he was initially stopped in Mississippi with $1.2 million in his truck. Perez-Berrios leased the warehouse in Texas where the 2000 pounds of marijuana was loaded for shipment to Charlotte. Perez-Berrios operated the forklift to load produce onto the truck, which his attorney argued showed that he was a worker, not a leader. However, having viewed the videotape of the loading, as well as other evidence, the district court determined that Perez-Berrios and the other co-defendants (including Gonzalez) were involved in a conspiracy and that Perez-Berrios appeared to be directing the others present as well as operating the forklift.

During the trial, Perez-Berrios and Gonzalez expressed frustration at Rios’ absence. Gonzalez’s attorney asked the federal agent in charge of the Charlotte investigation if he knew where Rios was, although Perez-Berrios’ attorney did not agree that the question should be asked. At the close of the government’s evidence, Gonzalez’s attorney informed the court that he intended to request a missing witness instruction; however, he later decided not to do so. Gonzalez did point out in his closing argument that neither Rios nor Smith had testified.

On appeal, Perez-Berrios contends that the Confrontation Clause, which protects a criminal defendant’s right to be confronted with the witnesses against him,” was violated by the admission of Rios’ statements and co-defendant Gonzalez’s statements. He further argues that admission of the statements by Rios and other indicted co-defendants in the audio and video recording of the truck loading on March 19, 2007, should likewise not have been admitted on confrontation grounds. As noted already, Rios did not appear at trial and trial co-defendant Gonzalez did not take the witness stand. Of the other indicted members of the conspiracy, only Ruiz-Melendez took the witness stand during this trial. Perez-Berrios further contests the admission of his recorded conversations with Rios on the ground that Rios was not present for cross-examination. Perez-Berrios also relies on Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 68, 124 S. Ct. 1354, 158 L. Ed. 2d 177 (2004), and its progeny, in support of his Confrontation Clause arguments.

Instructions:

This matter comes up to the Fourth Circuit on Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte, Frank D. Whitney, District Judge. The case will be decided by Judges M. Blane MICHAEL, Robert Bruce KING, and G. Steven AGEE, Circuit Judges. Although the opinion will be PER CURIAM, judge Michael has been assigned to write the draft on behalf of the panel. You are a law clerk to the Honorable Judge Michael, and he has instructed you to craft a well-reasoned draft opinion consistent with the following instructions:

The Court of appeals will rule that the admission of all the statements objected to by Perez-Berrios was not in error. The circuit will find that Judge Whitney properly admitted the evidence under the Federal Rules of Evidence, in particular under the Hearsay Doctrine, and that the admission did not violate Perez-Berrios’ confrontation rights. Following Judge Whitney’s findings, you must illustrate in detail how he applied all relevant Federal Rules of Evidence as well as the Crawford Confrontation Clause line of cases in a manner that should be sustained on appeal.

Applicable statutes and jury instruction:

21 USCS § 846. Attempt and conspiracy

Any person who attempts or conspires to commit any offense defined in this title shall be subject to the same penalties as those prescribed for the offense, the commission of which was the object of the attempt or conspiracy.

18 USCS § 18. Organization defined

As used in this title, the term “organization” means a person other than an individual.

21 USCS § 841. Prohibited acts

(a) Unlawful acts. Except as authorized by this title, it shall be unlawful for any person knowingly or intentionally--

(1) to manufacture, distribute, or dispense, or possess with intent to manufacture, distribute, or dispense, a controlled substance; or

(2) to create, distribute, or dispense, or possess with intent to distribute or dispense, a counterfeit substance.

(b) Penalties. Except as otherwise provided in section 409, 418, 419, or 420 [21 USCS § 849, 859, 860, or 861], any person who violates subsection (a) ofthis section shall be sentenced as follows:

(1) (A) In the case of a violation of subsection (a) of this section involving--

***

(1) (B) In the case of a violation of subsection (a) of this section involving--

(i) 100 grams or more of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of heroin;

(ii) 500 grams or more of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of--

(I) coca leaves, except coca leaves and extracts of coca leaves from which cocaine, ecgonine, and derivatives of ecgonine or their salts have been removed;

(II) cocaine, its salts, optical and geometric isomers, and salts of isomers;

(III) ecgonine, its derivatives, their salts, isomers, and salts of isomers; or

(IV) any compound, mixture, or preparation which contains any quantity of any of the substances referred to in subclauses (I) through (III);

(iii) 28 grams or more of a mixture or substance described in clause (ii) which contains cocaine base;

(iv) 10 grams or more of phencyclidine (PCP) or 100 grams or more of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of phencyclidine (PCP);

(v) 1 gram or more of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD);

(vi) 40 grams or more of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of N-phenyl-N- [1-(2-phenylethyl)-4-piperidinyl] propanamide or 10 grams or more of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of any analogue of N-phenyl-N- [1-(2-phenylethyl)-4-piperidinyl] propanamide;

(vii) 100 kilograms or more of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of marihuana, or 100 or more marihuana plants regardless of weight; or

(viii) 5 grams or more of methamphetamine, its salts, isomers, and salts of its isomers or 50 grams or more of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of methamphetamine, its salts, isomers, or salts of its isomers;

such person shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment which may not be less than 5 years and not more than 40 years and if death or serious bodily injury results from the use of such substance shall be not less than 20 years or more than life, a fine not to exceed the greater of that authorized in accordance with the provisions of title 18, United States Code, or $ 5,000,000 if the defendant is an individual or $ 25,000,000 if the defendant is other than an individual, or both. If any person commits such a violation after a prior conviction for a felony drug offense has become final, such person shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment which may not be less than 10 years and not more than life imprisonment and if death or serious bodily injury results from the use of such substance shall be sentenced to life imprisonment, a fine not to exceed the greater of twice that authorized in accordance with the provisions of title 18, United States Code, or $ 8,000,000 if the defendant is an individual or $ 50,000,000 if the defendant is other than an individual, or both. Notwithstanding section 3583 of title 18, any sentence imposed under this subparagraph shall, in the absence of such a prior conviction, include a term of supervised release of at least 4 years in addition to such term of imprisonment and shall, if there was such a prior conviction, include a term of supervised release of at least 8 years in addition to such term of imprisonment. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the court shall not place on probation or suspend the sentence of any person sentenced under this subparagraph. No person sentenced under this subparagraph shall be eligible for parole during the term of imprisonment imposed therein.

The Standard Federal Jury Instruction on the Conspiracy charge reads as follows:

21 U.S.C. § 846 and/or 21 U.S.C. § 963

It’s a separate Federal crime for anyone to conspire to knowingly possess with intent to distribute or import [substance].

[Title 21 United States Code Section 841(a)(1) makes it a crime for anyone to knowingly possess [substance] with intent to distribute it.]

[Title 21 United States Code Section 952 makes it a crime for anyone to knowingly import [substance] into the United States from some place outside the United States.]

A “conspiracy” is an agreement by two or more persons to commit an unlawful act. In other words, it is a kind of partnership for criminal purposes. Every member of the conspiracy becomes the agent or partner of every other member.

The Government does not have to prove that all of the people named in the indictment were members of the plan, or that those who were members made any kind of formal agreement. The heart of a conspiracy is the making of the unlawful plan itself, so the Government does not have to prove that the conspirators succeeded in carrying out the plan.

The Defendant can be found guilty only if all the following facts are proved beyond a reasonable doubt:

(1) two or more people in some way agreed to try to accomplish a shared and unlawful plan to possess or import [substance];

(2) the Defendant, knew the unlawful purpose of the plan and willfully joined in it; and

the object of the unlawful plan was to [possess with the intent to distribute] [import] more than [threshold] of [substance].

A person may be a conspirator even without knowing all the details of the unlawful plan or the names and identities of all the other alleged conspirators.

If the Defendant played only a minor part in the plan but had a general understanding of the unlawful purpose of the plan – and willfully joined in the plan on at least one occasion – that’s sufficient for you to find the Defendant guilty.

But simply being present at the scene of an event or merely associating with certain people and discussing common goals and interests doesn’t establish proof of a conspiracy. Also a person who doesn't know about a conspiracy but happens to act in a way that advances some purpose of one doesn't automatically become a conspirator.

[The Defendant[s] [is] [are] charged with [distributing] [possessing and intending to distribute] at least [threshold] of [substance]. But you may find [the] [any] Defendant guilty of the crime even if the amount of the controlled substance[s] for which [he] [she] should be held responsible is less than [threshold]. So if you find [the] [any] Defendant guilty, you must also unanimously agree on the weight of [substance] the Defendant possessed and specify the amount on the verdict form.]

The University of Florida

Fredric G. Levin College of Law

INSTRUCTIONS