Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

03-1293 Whitfield v. U.S.

By: dmc-admin//January 17, 2005//

03-1293 Whitfield v. U.S.

By: dmc-admin//January 17, 2005//

Listen to this article

Section 1956(h) provides: “Any person who conspires to commit any offense defined in [§1956] or section 1957 shall be subject to the same penalties as those prescribed for the offense the commission of which was the object of the conspiracy.” In United States v. Shabani, 513 U.S. 10, this Court held that the nearly identical language of the drug conspiracy statute, 21 U.S.C. § 846 does not require proof of an over act. The Shabani Court found instructive the distinction between §846 and the general conspiracy statute, 18 U.S.C. § 371 which supersedes the common law rule by expressly including an overt-act requirement. Shabani distilled the governing rule for conspiracy statutes: Nash v. United States, 229 U.S. 373, and Singer v. United States, 323 U.S. 338, “ ‘give Congress a formulary: by choosing a text modeled on §371, it gets an overt-act requirement; by choosing a text modeled on the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1 [which, like 21 U.S.C. § 846 omits any express overt-act requirement], it dispenses with such a requirement.’ “ 513 U.S., at 14. This rule dictates the outcome here as well: Because §1956(h)’s text does not expressly make the commission of an overt act an element of the conspiracy offense, the Government need not prove an overt act to obtain a conviction.

349 F.3d 1320, affirmed.

Local effect:

The decision reverses the statement in U.S. v. Emerson, 128 F.3d 557, 561 (7th Cir. 1997) that proof of an overt is required.

O’Connor, J.

Polls

Should Steven Avery be granted a new evidentiary hearing?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Legal News

See All Legal News

WLJ People

Sea all WLJ People

Opinion Digests