2.Supplemental Jury Instructions on Conspiracy and Aiding and Abetting

THE COURT: Yes? All right. Thank you.

Now, just before we broke yesterday the jury had sent in two questions, and I will now proceed to answer those questions for you.

The first question has really two parts but -- and I I'll separate them in giving the answers so that it is clear. The first part of the question is, "Can a conspiracy pertain to a sequence of events over multiple days or a distinct event?"

As you've been instructed, a criminal conspiracy is an agreement between two or more people to commit an unlawful act or acts. What the scope of the conspiracy was -- that is, what the conspirators agreed to do jointly -- is a question of fact for you to determine from your consideration of all the evidence that you find may bear on that question. Similarly, the duration of a conspiracy, how long it was to continue, is also a question of fact for you to determine from all the pertinent evidence.

A conspiracy may be limited in scope or duration because that is what the conspirators agreed. Similarly, it may be unlimited in scope or duration because that is what the conspirators agreed.

For example, to return to our hypothetical crime of selling apparel without providing a certificate of origin, two or more persons might conspire to commit that offense. They might agree to unlawfully sell a truckload of apparel that was at hand and then be done with it, or they might agree to sell as many truckloads as they could get their hands on for an indefinite period of time into the future if that's what they agreed on.

So the scope and duration of the conspiracy is to be determined from your assessment of the evidence in the case as it pertains to the conspiracies.

Now, as you pointed out in your question there are three conspiracy counts: 1, 6 and 11. They each allege a different conspiracy. It's possible that your conclusions based on your evaluation of the evidence could be the same in terms of duration and scope or they could be different. You should give separate consideration to each of them.

I call your attention to the fact that in each of Counts 1, 6 and 11 the indictment alleges that the conspiracy existed from at least in or about February 2013 up to and including on or about April 19th, 2013. So that is what the allegation of the indictment is. You're not bound by that, of course. The question is for you to evaluate whether that is factually true on the evidence or not. But I just bring to your attention that is what is alleged in the indictment.

You go on in the question to ask about Counts 1, 6 and 11. You ask, "On Counts 1, 6 and 11" -- those counts ask you to find an answer to Subparts A, B, C and D -- "but we only have to be unanimous for one. Do we have to consider all?"

The first question that each of -- on the verdict form for each of Counts 1, 6 and 11 is whether you find the defendant guilty or not guilty of that charge. If the answer is guilty, then you are to proceed to answer all the subparts of the questions that follow. To answer any of those questions "yes," you must unanimously agree beyond a reasonable doubt on that answer. To answer any of those questions "no," you must unanimously agree. And if your answer to the first question is "not guilty," then you proceed to the next count and do not answer the subsidiary questions. You answer only if your answer to the first question is "guilty."

The second question you have: "What is the difference between aiding and abetting? Is there a differentiation between the two? If there is phrasing of aiding and abetting, it doesn't seem like there is evidence of both aiding and abetting, but rather only aiding or abetting. How can it be said that aiding and abetting took place?"

"Aiding and abetting" is a single concept. It is sometimes said as "aiding and abetting" or it is sometimes said as "aiding or abetting," but either formulation means exactly the same thing. To aid and abet means to intentionally help someone else commit a criminal offense. A person who aids and abets the commission of a criminal offense by another person is criminally responsible for the commission of that offense. To prove -- as I instructed you, and as you have with you in the jury room, to prove guilt by aiding and abetting, the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt, first, that someone other than the defendant committed the crime charged; and, second, that the defendant consciously shared the other person's knowledge of the underlying criminal act, intended to help him commit the crime, and willfully took part in the criminal endeavor in some way seeking to help it succeed. And again, of course, an act is done willfully if it is done voluntarily and intentionally.

So those are my answers to the questions you put. We ask you now to resume your deliberations. The clerk will return to you the sealed envelope with the verdict slip in it as well as your notebooks and other materials, all right?