Conspiracy – withdrawal — burden of proof

Listen to this article

U.S. Supreme Court

Criminal

Conspiracy – withdrawal — burden of proof

A defendant bears the burden of proving a defense of withdrawal from a conspiracy.

Although Congress may assign the Government the burden of proving the nonexistence of withdrawal, it did not do so here. Because Congress did not address the burden of proof for withdrawal in 21 U. S. C. §846 or 18 U. S. C. §1962(d), it is presumed that Congress intended to preserve the common-law rule that affirmative defenses are for the defendant to prove. Dixon, supra, at 13–14. The analysis does not change when withdrawal is the basis for a statute-of-limitations defense. In that circumstance, the Government need only prove that the conspiracy continued past the statute-of-limitations period. A conspiracy continues until it is terminated or, as to a particular defendant, until that defendant withdraws. And the burden of establishing withdrawal rests upon the defendant.

651 F. 3d 30, affirmed.

11-8976 Smith v. U.S.

Scalia, J.