conspiracy

Issues

Plaintiff, Twombly, brought a class action antitrust suit against local telephone and internet providers (Bell Atlantic) alleging the defendants had agreed not to compete with each other and conspired to prevent the entry of competitors within their respective territories. The District Court granted Bell Atlantic’s 12(b)6 motion to dismiss on the grounds that Twombly’s complaint failed to include a factual allegation that would “tend to exclude” independent self-interest as an explanation for defendants’ parallel conduct.  On appeal, the Second Circuit reversed and remanded on the grounds that a heightened pleading standard does not apply in the context of antitrust litigation. Bell Atlantic argues that application of the “tend to exclude” standard is necessary to filter frivolous lawsuits.  Twombly responds that the “tend to exclude”  standard  is contrary to the pleading requirements  under  the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and would unfairly block meritorious antitrust suits.  

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Additional Resources

Issues

Juan Bravo-Fernandez and Hector Martínez-Maldonado were involved in a federal program bribery scheme in which Bravo allegedly paid for Martinez’s trip to Las Vegas to attend a boxing match in exchange for Martínez pushing through beneficial legislation for Bravo’s private security company. A jury convicted both defendants of committing federal bribery in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 666 but acquitted them of other bribery-related charges.  The convictions were later vacated due to a jury instruction error, and Bravo and Martínez were acquitted on remand.  Bravo and Martínez argue that the jury acquittals retain preclusive effect under the Double Jeopardy Clause despite the fact that jury had originally returned inconsistent verdicts. The government counters that because the jury’s inconsistent verdicts do not allow Bravo and Martínez to show that the jury had decided in their favor, collateral estoppel does not apply. The outcome of this case could potentially affect prosecutorial theories and could disadvantage criminal defendants who face various predicate and conspiracy charges. 

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Issues

In this case, the Supreme Court will consider whether the United States must prove elements of a crime not contained in the relevant criminal statute but included in an erroneous jury instruction if the government failed to object to that instruction at trial.  The Court will also consider whether an appellate court may review a statute-of-limitations defense not raised at trial. See Brief for Petitioner, Michael Musacchio at i; Brief for Respondent, United States at i. Michael Musacchio was convicted of conspiracy to access a computer system without authorization. According to the relevant statute, the United States had to demonstrate “Mussachio had agreed to make unauthorized access or exceed authorized access” of a computer system. See United States v. Musacchio, 590 Fed. Appx. 360, 362 (5th Cir. 2014). However, the trial court’s jury instructions stated that the jury must find that Musacchio “intentionally access[ed] a protected computer without authorization and exceed[ed] authorized access.” (emphasis added) See id. at 361. Neither Musacchio nor the United States objected to the instruction. On appeal, Musacchio challenged the sufficiency of the government’s evidence. Musacchio contends that the law-of-the-case doctrine requires the United States to prove the elements of the crime as described in the jury instructions, even when the jury instructions were erroneous and imposed a heightened burden on the government. See Brief for Petitioner, Michael Musacchio, at 19–22. Musacchio also argues that a statue-of-limitations defense not raised at trial is reviewable on appeal. See id. at 37–39; 53. The United States contends that the law-of-the-case doctrine is inapplicable, because the jury instructions were patently erroneous, and the proper statutory elements were stated in the indictment. See Brief for Respondent, United States at 13. The United States further argues that Musacchio waived his statute-of-limitations defense by failing to raise it at trial. See id. at 40–41. The Court’s decision in this case may affect the government’s prosecutorial power, the fairness of trials, and the availability of statute of limitations defenses. See Brief for Petitioner at 19-20; Brief for Respondent at 13, 48-51.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Issues

Samuel Ocasio, a former officer of the Baltimore Police Department, was involved in a kickback scheme in which officers would refer car accident victims to an unauthorized towing company in exchange for monetary compensation. Ocasio was charged with conspiracy to commit extortion under the Hobbs Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1951. In this case, the Supreme Court will address whether the conspirators have to agree to obtain property from someone outside the conspiracy. See Brief for Petitioner, Samuel Ocasio at i. Ocasio claims that a defendant must conspire with someone to obtain property from another person outside the conspiracy. See id. at 21. The United States counters that the conspirators in an extortion scheme need to agree only that the public official will obtain property from another person, but that the other person may be one of the co-conspirators. See Brief for Respondent, United States at 15. The decision in this case will implicate the boundaries between state criminal law and federal law for extortion. The decision will also clarify the method of statutory interpretation applied when statutory language is ambiguous. See Brief of Amici Curiae Former United States Attorneys, in Support of Petitioner at 4, 10.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Petitioner Calvin Smith was involved in a criminal drug distribution organization and imprisoned for a related murder in 1994. In 2000, a grand jury brought indictments against him. Smith defended his two conspiracy charges on the grounds that the statute of limitations barred his conviction because he had withdrawn from the conspiracy more than five years ago. The trial court directed the jury that the burden of proof was on Smith as defendant to prove withdrawal by a preponderance of the evidence. Smith claims his participation in the conspiracy during the statutory period is a necessary element of his crime that the government must prove. Additionally, since withdrawal and participation are mutually exclusive, his withdrawal would negate an essential element of the government's case against him. The United States argues that withdrawal is an affirmative defense, and the burden of proof lies with the defendant. This case will define the boundaries of Due Process Protection in conspiracy cases and similar cases involving amorphous and on-going criminal activity.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by