8. Should the motion be granted?

B is correct. At common law, a conspiracy is defined as an agreement between two or more persons to accomplish some unlawful goal or some lawful goal by unlawful means. A co-conspirator need not be present at the commission of each crime, nor does the arrest of one co-conspirator automatically terminate the conspiracy where other co-conspirators continue to carry out the goals of the conspiracy. So long as there is an initial agreement among the conspirators to engage in a course of criminal conduct constituting all the crimes, there is only one conspiracy. As such, the motion for a judgment of acquittal should be denied because the mere fact that the man was in jail does not preclude his participation in the conspiracy.

A is incorrect. Conspirators must agree on the essential objectives of the conspiracy. In any event, the rationale offered here is inapposite because the problem raised by the question is not the failure to agree to the robberies, but rather, not being present during the latter robberies. The defendant's motion for acquittal should be denied, for the reasons stated above.

C is incorrect. The defendant is not entitled to an acquittal, even if there was compliance with the pre-trial notice alibi rule. Again, even if the defendant showed that he was in prison during several of the robberies, he could be convicted of the conspiracy.

D is incorrect. The defendant is not entitled to an acquittal, as explained above. Furthermore, the reasoning stated in this answer, that «the government is bound by exculpatory evidence elicited during its case-in-chief,» is incorrect.