6th Cir. Pattern Crim. Jury Instr. 14.05

(1) Count ___ of the indictment charges the defendant(s) with conspiracy to [insert substantive crime]. It is a crime for two or more persons to conspire, or agree, to commit a drug crime, even if they never actually achieve their goal.

(2) A conspiracy is a kind of criminal partnership. For you to find the defendant [any one of the defendants] guilty of the conspiracy charge, the government must prove each and every one of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

(A) First, that two or more persons conspired, or agreed, to [insert substantive crime].

(B) Second, that the defendant(s) knew of the conspiracy and its [objects] [aims] [goals], and

(C) Third, that the defendant joined the conspiracy with the intent that at least one of the conspirators engage in conduct that satisfies the elements of [insert substantive crime].

(3) Now I will give you more detailed instructions on some of these terms.

(A) With regard to the first element – a criminal agreement – the government must prove that two or more persons conspired, or agreed, to cooperate with each other to [insert substantive crime].

(1) Proof of conspiracy does not require proof of any formal agreement, written or spoken. Nor does this require proof that everyone involved agreed on all the details. But proof that people simply met together from time to time and talked about common interests, or engaged in similar conduct, is not enough to establish a criminal agreement. Nor is a single transaction between a buyer and a seller sufficient to establish the existence of a conspiracy. These are things that you may consider in deciding whether the government has proved an agreement. But without more they are not enough.

(2) What the government must prove is that there was a mutual understanding, either spoken or unspoken, between two or more people, to cooperate with each other to [insert substantive crime]. This is essential.

(3) An agreement can be proved indirectly, by facts and circumstances which lead to a conclusion that an agreement existed. But it is up to the government to convince you that such facts and circumstances existed in this particular case.

[(4) One more point about the agreement. The indictment accuses the defendant(s) of conspiring to commit several drug crimes. The government does not have to prove that the defendant[s] agreed to commit all these crimes. But the government must prove an agreement to commit at least one of them for you to return a guilty verdict on the conspiracy charge.]

(B) With regard to the second and third elements – the defendant’s connection to the conspiracy – the government must prove that the defendant(s) knew of the conspiracy and its [objects] [aims] [goals] and joined the conspiracy with the intent that at least one of conspirators engage in conduct that satisfies the elements of [insert substantive crime].

(1) [You must consider each defendant separately in this regard.]

(2) Proof of conspiracy does not require proof that a defendant knew everything about the conspiracy, or everyone else involved, or that he was a member of it from the very beginning. Nor does it require proof that a defendant played a major role in the conspiracy, or that his connection to it was substantial. A slight role or connection may be enough.

(3) Further, this does not require proof that the defendant knew the drug involved was [name controlled substance]. It is enough that the defendant knew that it was some kind of controlled substance. Nor does this require proof that the defendant knew how much [name controlled substance] was involved. It is enough that the defendant knew that some quantity was involved.

(4) But proof that a defendant simply knew about a conspiracy, or was present at times, or associated with members of the group, is not enough, even if he approved of what was happening or did not object to it. Similarly, just because a defendant may have done something that happened to help a conspiracy does not necessarily make him a conspirator. These are all things that you may consider in deciding whether the government has proved that a defendant joined a conspiracy. But without more they are not enough.

(5) A defendant's knowledge can be proved indirectly by facts and circumstances which lead to a conclusion that he knew of the conspiracy and its [objects] [aims] [goals]. But it is up to the government to convince you that such facts and circumstances existed in this particular case.

Use Note

This instruction should be followed by Instructions 3.05 through 3.14 as appropriate based on the facts of the case. If the court gives any of these additional instructions, all references to overt acts should be deleted.

If the object drug offense is not charged and defined elsewhere in the instructions, it must be defined at some point in the conspiracy instruction.

This instruction covers simple conspiracy to violate the drug laws. If the prosecution involves conspiracy with increased penalties based on the amount of the controlled substance, see also Inst. 14.07B Unanimity Required – Determining Amount of Controlled Substance (§ 846). If the prosecution involves conspiracy with increased penalties based on death or serious bodily injury, Inst. 14.07C Unanimity Required – Determining Whether Death or Serious Bodily Injury Resulted for Distributing/Dispensing or Manufacturing (§ 841) may be modified to fit the facts.

Bracketed paragraph (3)(A)(4) should be included when the indictment alleges multiple object offenses. It is unclear whether an augmented unanimity instruction specifically requiring unanimous agreement on the same object offense is necessary. See generally Instruction 8.03B and Committee Commentary.

The bracketed sentence in paragraph (3)(B)(1) on considering each defendant separately should be included when multiple defendants are charged with conspiracy.

Specific instructions that an agreement between a defendant and a government agent will not support a conspiracy conviction may be required where important based on the facts of the particular case.