ADMJ 103 Lecture Notes - Lecture 21: Lauria, Abet

• School: GCC
• Department: Administration Of Justice
• Course: ADMJ 103
• Professor: Jackson

Document Summary

Daniel claims there was insufficient evidence to implicate him in the conspiracy. However, there was enough evidence to submit the issue to the jury. However, there is no evidence to show that daniel participated directly in the commission of the substantive offenses, although there was evidence that walter committed the offenses in furtherance of the conspiracy. Argument: conspiracy is not enough to sustain a conviction for a substantive offense even if committed in furtherance of the conspiracy. Evidence of direct participation or from which participation might fairly be inferred is necessary (according to us v. sall, 3rd cir. We disagree: this case is a continuous conspiracy; there is no evidence daniel withdrew from the conspiracy. As long as the partnership in crime continues, the partners act for each other in carrying it forward. If the substantive offence was not done in furtherance of the conspiracy or fall w/n the scope of the project, then the outcome would be different.