Overt Act Requirement For Conspiracy

75 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• United States v. Giordano
  693 F.2d 245· 2d Cir.· 1982-11-01 ·cited 12×
  The court held that a conspiracy to destroy a business by explosives, even if the target business is fictitious or its destruction impossible, falls under federal jurisdiction if the conspirators intended to affect interstate commerce and committed an overt act.
• United States v. Waldron
  590 F.2d 33· 1st Cir.· 1979-01-15 ·cited 12×
  A conspiracy conviction does not require proof that the conspirators knew the goods were stolen or met the value threshold for the substantive offense, if the object of the conspiracy was to commit such an offense.
• United States v. Lanier
  920 F.2d 887· 11th Cir.· 1991-01-10 ·cited 11×
  The court held that a defendant can be convicted under both the general conspiracy statute (18 U.S.C. § 371) and a specific conspiracy statute (18 U.S.C. § 286) if each statute requires proof of an element not required by the other, and that sufficient evidence supported the embe
• United States v. Tripp
  782 F.2d 38· 6th Cir.· 1986-01-16 ·cited 11×
  The court held that evidence of other card games was admissible as part of the conspiracy, that 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d) does not require proof of overt acts, that the RICO statute is not unconstitutionally vague, and that rigged poker games constitute gambling under state law.
• Hansen v. United States
  326 F.2d 152· 9th Cir.· 1963-12-13 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the jury could properly infer knowledge of interstate transportation from the defendant's actions and that the testimony of a co-defendant who pleaded guilty was admissible.
• Crain v. United States
  148 F.2d 615· 5th Cir.· 1945-04-10 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the evidence was insufficient to support the conspiracy conviction because it did not establish an agreement to transport stolen money in interstate commerce or any overt act in furtherance of such an agreement.
• Gordon v. Duran
  895 F.2d 610· 9th Cir.· 1990-02-05 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court's denial of the habeas corpus petition was proper, as none of the petitioner's claims presented a basis for federal relief.
• United States v. Kasvin
  757 F.2d 887· 7th Cir.· 1985-03-13 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the business records were admissible under the Federal Rules of Evidence and that the evidence supported the conviction for conspiracy, either as a member or as an aider and abettor.
• United States v. Montgomery
  440 F.2d 694· 9th Cir.· 1971-04-07 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction and that any error in restricting cross-examination was not reversible. The jury instructions regarding the overt act requirement for conspiracy were also deemed proper.
• Stockler v. Garratt
  893 F.2d 856· 6th Cir.· 1990-01-11 ·cited 4×
  The dissent argues that the court's current opinion conflicts with prior precedent by not requiring proof of the use of an intercepted communication to establish a violation of the wiretap statute.
• United States v. Peraino
  645 F.2d 548· 6th Cir.· 1981-04-06 ·cited 4×
  A conspirator who joins a conspiracy late is bound by prior acts and statements of other conspirators made in furtherance of the common objective.
• United States v. Burts
  536 F.2d 1140· 6th Cir.· 1976-06-22 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to prove conspiracy and an overt act, and that no prosecutorial misconduct or other substantial errors occurred.
• United States v. McCARTHY
  170 F.2d 267· 2d Cir.· 1948-10-28 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction and that the prosecutor's comments did not warrant reversal.
• United States v. Reshat Shabani
  993 F.2d 1419· 9th Cir.· 1993-05-17 ·cited 2×
  The court held that while the indictment was sufficient without alleging an overt act, the jury should have been instructed that the government must prove an overt act.
• United States v. Caldwell
  989 F.2d 1056· 9th Cir.· 1993-03-18
  A conspiracy to obstruct a government function is not a federal crime under 18 U.S.C. § 371 unless the obstruction is accomplished by deceitful or dishonest means.
• United States v. Keohane
  918 F.2d 273· 1st Cir.· 1990-11-05
  The court held that the appellant's receipt of salary payments from his unlawfully obtained position constituted overt acts within the statute of limitations period, and that the mailing of promotion interview notices was sufficient to satisfy the mailing element of mail fraud.
• State v. King
  10 Fla. Supp. 49· Dade Cty. Cir. Ct.· 1956-12-27
  The court held that a conspiracy conviction under Florida Statute § 833.01 does not require proof of an overt act, only proof of an agreement to commit an offense.
• United States v. Russo
  235 F.2d 477· 2d Cir.· 1956-07-19
  The court held that an indictment for conspiracy need not allege an actual violation of the substantive statute or that the defendant committed an overt act.