ARGUMENTThe Government Failed to Establish an Interdependent Conspiracy Between theDefendants as Charged In Count One of the Indictment.
In order for the Government’s conviction on Count I, Conspiracy to stand the Court mustfind that the government provided evidence to the jury that demonstrated “(1) that two or more persons agreed to violate the law, (2) that the defendant knew at least the essentialobjectives of the conspiracy, (3) that the defendant knowingly and voluntarily became a part of it, and (4) that the alleged coconspirators were interdependent.”
United States v.Caldwell
589 F3 1323 (2009).
Clark never entered into an agreement with Greenberg to engage in illegal activity.At trial, while exhibiting regrets for his behavior, Clark clearly related to the jury that hedid not believe
at the time
he engaged in his behavior that he was committing any illegalacts. The law in area was not clear in 1993 when Clark began to engage in this conduct.Clark was never sanctioned or even questioned by ATF Examiners about his conduct.Therefore, it would make perfect sense that Clark did not testify that he and Greenberghad an agreement to defraud or engage in any illegal conduct due to Clark not believinghis conduct was illegal.Furthermore,
clearly stands for the premise that in order for thedefendants to be engaged in a conspiracy there has to be an “interdependent relationship.”
is instructive to the case at bar. In
the defendant was convicted of entering a conspiracy to sell marijuana. However, the Appellate Court found that whileCaldwell and co-defendant Anderson were both being supplied marijuana by
co-defendant Herrera, both Caldwell and Anderson were independent drug dealers and eachhad conspired with Herrera in their own separate relationship. Co-counsel summarizedthe argument best in his Omnibus Motion. In
Kotteakos v. United States,
328 U.S. 750(1946) , a broker obtained fraudulent loans for 31 people. All were tied together as awheel conspiracy but the government failed to establish a rim linking the creditors with
Case 2:10-cr-01047-ROS Document 547 Filed 02/08/13 Page 3 of 6