Murder, rape and bribery are all crimes that everyone understands; what is meant by conspiracy is less obvious. ‘Lately, this age-old crime has become one that district attorneys find themselves prosecuting in a variety of important cases. Conspiracy charges have helped convict such diverse defendants as Billie Sol Estes, the accused killers of the three Mississippi civil rights workers, and price-fixing General Electric executives.
Last week conspiracy was again in the news—as Dr. Benjamin Spock, Yale Chaplain William Sloane Coffin and three others stood indicted for conspiring to violate the Selective Service Act. The charges had been brought after weeks of preparation by Attorney General Ramsey Clark’s Justice Department. It all apparently pleased one of the codefendants, however. Said Harvard Graduate Student Michael Ferber: “This is the best thing that ever happened to us.” But despite the bravado, he may find conspiracy a tough charge to beat.
In Massachusetts Chief Justice Lemuel Shaw’s classic, century-old definition, conspiracy is “a combination of two or more persons, by some concerted action, to accomplish some criminal or unlawful purpose, or to accomplish some purpose, not in itself criminal or unlawful, by criminal or unlawful means.” The concept of criminal conspiracy is rooted deep in common law; its philosophical underpinning is the premise that two or more men working together are a greater danger to society than an individual plotting alone. Today conspiracy by itself is a crime under federal law and in virtually every state. Ordinarily, it is not even necessary for the ultimate act contemplated in the conspiracy to be accomplished.
No Isolated Charges. There are a number of obvious and not so obvious openings to the prosecutor. To begin with, he need only prove that the defendants knowingly agreed to commit a crime. In some states, he needs to prove nothing else. In others, and under federal law, he must prove that afterward at least one overt act in the direction of the crime was committed by at least one conspirator.
Once the conspiracy has been proved, all of the various participants can be held responsible for anything that any one of them may have done in furtherance of the conspiracy. This is particularly valuable in organized-crime cases. When Lucky Luciano was convicted for compulsory prostitution in the ’30s, for instance, he was guilty in part because of conspiracy. In a case like the Spock-Coffin indictment, the Government also does not need to prove an endless list of isolated charges. Instead, says Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz, “it would like to paint the picture of a widespread agreement, and that may be a realistic portrayal of the situation.”
Evil Vehicle. A conspiracy charge gives the Government a wide range of locations in which to present its case; it can bring its charges in any area where the conspiracy was either hatched or advanced. Most important of all, however, are the evidentiary advantages. Anything any conspirator said to further the plot can be used against all conspirators. One exception is a confession by one of the plotters. Theoretically, it can only be used against the man who made it. But juries often find it difficult to remember that fine point and tend to regard the confession as damning to all the conspirators.
The prosecution case is usually aided by such a technically improper jury assumption, and defense lawyers are hardly happy about it. Says Indianapolis Attorney John Raikos: “The real evil of conspiracy is that it is a vehicle used by the prosecutor to get in evidence that he could not otherwise possibly get in.” Some legal scholars agree. Yale Law Professor Abraham Goldstein says: “It threatens the whole fair-trial notion.” And, he adds, it crowds the maxim of Anglo-Saxon law that a man cannot be punished for evil intent alone.
It can be “a legal vacuum cleaner,” agrees Georgetown’s William Greenhalgh, “but only if misused.” Ultimately, it is only the potential for misuse that disturbs most critics. By and large, prosecutors have not gravely abused their potent weapon, perhaps out of fear of provoking judges to limit it.
More Must-Reads from TIME
- Inside Elon Musk’s War on Washington
- Why Do More Young Adults Have Cancer?
- Colman Domingo Leads With Radical Love
- 11 New Books to Read in February
- How to Get Better at Doing Things Alone
- Cecily Strong on Goober the Clown
- Column: The Rise of America’s Broligarchy
- Introducing the 2025 Closers
Contact us at letters@time.com