This is the old version of the H2O platform and is now read-only. This means you can view content but cannot create content. You can access the new platform at https://opencasebook.org. Thank you.
Conspiracy, unlike complicity, is a standalone crime. Its requirements are very minimal: at common law, only an agreement to commit unlawful actions. The agreement, itself, is the actus reus. Under federal law, an act in furtherance is needed to seal the conspiracy.
Often, proving conspiracy is much easier than proving a completed or attempted crime, and so conspiracy has become a favorite tool of prosecutors to lower the burden of proof, accumulate charges, or increase the number of people implicated in a crime. As you read these cases, consider the distinctions between conspiracy and complicity. Consider also how far liability extends. What is the mens rea for the crime of conspiracy itself? What mens rea is necessary for the subsequent crimes committed in furtherance of the conspiracy? How do the various formulations of conspiracy liability interact with the justifications of punishment—retribution, deterrence, incapacitation, and rehabilitation?EDIT PLAYLIST INFORMATION DELETE PLAYLIST
Edit playlist item notes below to have a mix of public & private notes, or:MAKE ALL NOTES PUBLIC (5/5 playlist item notes are public) MAKE ALL NOTES PRIVATE (0/5 playlist item notes are private)
May 27, 2016
Griswold Reading Groups
Harvard Law School
This is the old version of the H2O platform and is now read-only. This means you can view content but cannot create content. If you would like access to the new version of the H2O platform and have not already been contacted by a member of our team, please contact us at email@example.com. Thank you.