DOJ-OGR-00017235.pdf

--- Page 1 --- **Document Header** * Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE * Document 767 * Filed 08/10/22 * Page 214 of 257 * LCKVMAX8 * Charge **Page Content** 1. that is, spoken or unspoken -- came to a mutual understanding 2. to violate the law and to accomplish an unlawful plan. 3. Express language or specific words are not required to 4. indicate assent or attachment to a conspiracy. If you find beyond a reasonable doubt that two or more persons came to an understanding, express or implied, to violate the law and to accomplish an unlawful plan, then the government will have sustained its burden of proof as to this element. 5. To show that a conspiracy existed, the government is not required to show that two or more people sat around a table and entered into a solemn pact orally or in writing stating that they had formed a conspiracy to violate the law, spelling out all of the details. Common sense tells you that when people, in fact, agree to enter into a criminal conspiracy, much is left to the unexpressed understanding. It is rare that a conspiracy can be proven by direct evidence of an explicit agreement. Conspirators do not usually reduce their agreements to writing or acknowledge them before a notary public, nor do they publicly broadcast their plans. 6. In determining whether an agreement existed, you may consider direct as well as circumstantial evidence. The old adage "actions speak louder than words" applies here. Often the only evidence that is available with respect to the existence of a conspiracy is that of disconnected acts and conduct on the part of the alleged individual co-conspirators. **Footer** * SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. * (212) 805-0300 * DOJ-OGR-00017235