Full access allows:
- Solve all tests online without limits;
- Remove all advertisements on website;
- Adding questions to favorite list;
- Save learning progress;
- Save results of practice exams;
- Watching all wrong answered questions.
12. Should the court grant the motion?
The woman and her sister were indicted for conspiracy to import cocaine. They were tried separately. At the woman's trial, after the government introduced the above evidence and rested its case, her lawyer moved for a judgment of acquittal on grounds of insufficient evidence.
A woman and her sister took a trip to the Caribbean. When they passed through U.S. Customs inspection upon their return, the customs officials found packages of cocaine stitched inside separate carry-on bags belonging to each of them. They were arrested. Upon separate questioning by customs officers, the woman broke down and cried, «I told my sister there were too many officers at this airport.» The sister did not give a statement.
Comments (0)
There are no comments at the moment. If you found an error or think question is incorrect, tell everyone about it
Only signed in users can write comments
Signin
One cannot withdraw from a conspiracy once it is formed, but only may withdraw from liability for future, foreseeable crimes committed in furtherance of that conspiracy. See Pinkerton v. United States, 328 U.S. 640 (1946). In jurisdictions that require an overt act, one may withdraw from a conspiracy before that overt act takes place.
A is correct. Pay close attention to the call of this question: It concerns a motion for acquittal on grounds of insufficient evidence. It does not require a determination of guilt or innocence, but rather, whether the facts could support a rational jury's finding. The woman's statement to the customs officers that she had told her sister «there were too many officers at this airport» could support a rational jury's conclusion that the sisters had agreed to import the cocaine that the officers found in the sisters' bags. If this jurisdiction requires an overt act, anything from acquiring the cocaine, to stitching it into their carry-on bags, to attempting to pass through customs with the drugs could qualify as an overt act. Because the totality of the circumstances could support a rational jury's finding that the sisters had formed a criminal conspiracy to import cocaine, the woman is not entitled to a court-ordered acquittal for lack of sufficient evidence.
B is incorrect. The evidence may indeed show that the woman and her sisters possessed cocaine, but that possession does not necessarily prove that the sisters entered into an agreement to import that cocaine, which is required under a conspiracy charge. Although this answer option states the correct conclusion that the court should not grant the motion, it is because there is sufficient evidence to conclude that the sisters had a conspiratorial agreement, not because the evidence shows that they possessed the cocaine.
C is incorrect. As explained above, there is enough evidence based on the given facts to allow a rational jury to find that the sisters entered into a conspiracy to import cocaine. While the evidence may support separate crimes of cocaine possession, and a jury could possibly find that the sisters did not conspire to import the cocaine, it is a question of fact that the jury should have the opportunity to determine. The woman is not entitled to her requested acquittal.
D is incorrect. The woman cooperated with the customs agents by giving a statement after she and her sister were caught with the cocaine at the airport. As discussed above, there is sufficient evidence to support a finding that the sisters had entered into a conspiracy to import the cocaine before they were caught, so regardless of whether this jurisdiction requires an overt act, the woman could not have withdrawn from the completed conspiracy by giving a statement to the customs officers.