In 403 F. 3d 123, 147 (3d Cir. 2005), the Third Circuit also stated United States v. Brodie, that, government, in proving a conspiracy under 18 U.S.C. § 371, was required to prove at “the least the degree of criminal intent necessary for the underlying substantive offense of violating the American Cuban embargo. 420 U.S. 671, 686. . . .” The mental See United States v. Feola, state required for the underlying offense in was specific intent, which the context of Brodie “[i]n [that] offense ... demands that the government prove that a defendant had general knowledge of the law which forbade his actions and acted with the specific intent to circumvent that law.” 403 F.3d at 147. Brodie, (Revised 12/09) 6.18.371F Conspiracy Acts – With regard to the fourth element of conspiracy overt acts the – – government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that during the existence of the conspiracy at least one member of the conspiracy performed at least one of the overt acts described in the indictment, for the purpose of furthering or helping to achieve the objective(s) of the conspiracy. The indictment alleges certain overt acts. The government does not have to prove that all of these acts were committed or that any of these acts were themselves illegal. Also, the government does not have to prove that personally (name) committed any of the overt acts. The government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that at least one member of the conspiracy committed at least one of the overt acts alleged in the indictment and committed it during the time that the conspiracy existed, for the purpose of furthering or helping to achieve the objective(s) of the conspiracy. You must unanimously agree on the overt act that was committed.
In United States v. Brodie, 403 F. 3d 123, 147 (3d Cir. 2005), the Third Circuit also stated that, “the government, in proving a conspiracy under 18 U.S.C. § 371, was required to prove at least the degree of criminal intent necessary for the underlying substantive offense of violating the American Cuban embargo. See United States v. Feola, 420 U.S. 671, 686. . . .” The mental state required for the underlying offense in Brodie was specific intent, which “[i]n the context of [that] offense ... demands that the government prove that a defendant had general knowledge of the law which forbade his actions and acted with the specific intent to circumvent that law.” Brodie, 403 F.3d at 147. (Revised 12/09) 6.18.371F Conspiracy – Acts With regard to the fourth element of conspiracy – overt acts – the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that during the existence of the conspiracy at least one member of the conspiracy performed at least one of the overt acts described in the indictment, for the purpose of furthering or helping to achieve the objective(s) of the conspiracy. The indictment alleges certain overt acts. The government does not have to prove that all of these acts were committed or that any of these acts were themselves illegal. Also, the government does not have to prove that (name) personally committed any of the overt acts. The government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that at least one member of the conspiracy committed at least one of the overt acts alleged in the indictment and committed it during the time that the conspiracy existed, for the purpose of furthering or helping to achieve the objective(s) of the conspiracy. You must unanimously agree on the overt act that was committed.
Chapter%206%20Conspiracy%20Rev%20April%202015.docx