Conspiracy Question

(Study Tips, Dealing With Stress, Maintaining a Social Life, Financial Aid, Internships, Bar Exam, Careers in Law . . . )
User avatar
Mce252
Posts: 940
Joined: Thu Jun 11, 2009 12:43 pm

Conspiracy Question

Postby Mce252 » Thu Dec 01, 2011 12:07 pm

Conspiracy to solicit - this is an offense, right? When B agrees with A to help find someone to commit the target offense. If so, where does the liability via Pinkerton end? When the soliciation is complete? Or when the target offense solicited is complete?

zomginternets
Posts: 547
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2011 1:59 pm

Re: Conspiracy Question

Postby zomginternets » Thu Dec 01, 2011 7:30 pm

No such thing as conspiracy to solicit. Asking someone to help you execute a crime is solicitation. As soon as the other person agrees to help, it's conspiracy. So in your example, once B has agreed to help A, B is liable for conspiracy, and thus liable under Pinkerton for the crimes committed in furtherance/reasonably foreseeable consequence/[forgot the other prong] of the conspiracy, which certainly includes the crime that A solicited help to commit.

User avatar
Mce252
Posts: 940
Joined: Thu Jun 11, 2009 12:43 pm

Re: Conspiracy Question

Postby Mce252 » Fri Dec 02, 2011 10:25 am

Asking someone to help you with a crime isn't a solicitation under the common law. It has to be a "do it for me, not with me" type of relationship under the common law. It brings accomplice liability through the aid rendered but not for solicitation. The model penal code is different.

I don't see why conspiracy to solicit wouldn't be a crime. It's unlawful activity agreed upon between two or more people. Thus, the goal of their agreement is to solicit a party to commit a crime.

I can see what you mean that Pinkerton is going to obviously hold both parties liabile for any further crimes becasue they are foreseeable and within the scope of a planned solicitation, but my point is that if they were arrested at that moment before the solicited party either turned them down or couldn't be found, a conspiracy to solicit seems to be applicable. At least I still don't see why not.

zomginternets
Posts: 547
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2011 1:59 pm

Re: Conspiracy Question

Postby zomginternets » Fri Dec 02, 2011 5:11 pm

Sorry I misread your question, I thought it was just A asking B, not that A agrees with B to ask C.

Conspiracy also requires an overt act toward the end served. So both A and B would have to do something to effectuate the asking of C to commit a crime in order for both A and B to be guilty of conspiracy to solicit C. I don't see any theoretical reason why this couldn't happen.

This sounds like a question for your prof.




Return to “Forum for Law School Students”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: gwcolonial24, lizaregina, mathis1490, shineoncrazydiamond and 11 guests