Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
Syllabus
NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is
being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued.
The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been
prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader.
See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337.
No. 118976
_________________
[January 9, 2013]
3 Narcotics
conspiracy under 21 U. S. C. 846 criminalizes conspir[ing] to commit any offense under the Controlled Substances
Act, including the knowing distribution of, or possession with intent to
distribute, controlled substances, 841(a)(1). Section 1962(d) of Title 18
makes it unlawful to conspire to violate RICO, which makes it unlawful, among other things, for any person employed by or associated with
any enterprise engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or
foreign commerce, to conduct or participate, directly or indirectly, in the
Far from contradicting an element of the offense, withdrawal presupposes that the defendant committed the
offense. Withdrawal achieves more modest ends than
exoneration. Since conspiracy is a continuing offense,
United States v. Kissel, 218 U. S. 601, 610 (1910), a defendant who has joined a conspiracy continues to violate
the law through every moment of [the conspiracys] existence, Hyde v. United States, 225 U. S. 347, 369 (1912),
and he becomes responsible for the acts of his coconspirators in pursuit of their common plot, Pinkerton v.
United States, 328 U. S. 640, 646 (1946). Withdrawal
terminates the defendants liability for postwithdrawal
acts of his co-conspirators, but he remains guilty of
conspiracy.
Withdrawal also starts the clock running on the time
within which the defendant may be prosecuted, and provides a complete defense when the withdrawal occurs
beyond the applicable statute-of-limitations period.4 A
complete defense, however, is not necessarily one that
establishes the defendants innocence. For example, we
have held that although self-defense may entirely excuse
or justify aggravated murder, the elements of aggravated
murder and self-defense [do not] overlap in the sense that
evidence to prove the latter will often tend to negate the
former. Martin, supra, at 234; see Leland v. Oregon, 343
U. S. 790, 794796 (1952) (same for insanity defense).
Likewise, although the statute of limitations may inhibit
proof. Id., at 9. On the matter of withdrawal, the informational asymmetry heavily favors the defendant. Passive nonparticipation in the continuing scheme is not
enough to sever the meeting of minds that constitutes the
conspiracy. [T]o avert a continuing criminality there
must be affirmative action . . . to disavow or defeat the
purpose of the conspiracy. Hyde, supra, at 369. The
defendant knows what steps, if any, he took to dissociate
from his confederates. He can testify to his act of withdrawal or direct the court to other evidence substantiating
his claim.5 It would be nearly impossible for the Government to prove the negative that an act of withdrawal never happened. See 9 J. Wigmore, Evidence 2486,
p. 288 (J. Chadbourn rev. 1981) (It is often said that the
burden is upon the party having in form the affirmative
allegation). Witnesses with the primary power to refute a
withdrawal defense will often be beyond the Governments
reach: The defendants co-conspirators are likely to invoke
their right against self-incrimination rather than explain
their unlawful association with him.
Here again, the analysis does not change when withdrawal is the basis for a statute-of-limitations defense. To
be sure, we have held that the Government must prove
the time of the conspiracy offense if a statute-of-limitations
defense is raised. Grunewald v. United States, 353 U. S.
391, 396 (1957). But the Government satisfied that burden here when it proved that the conspiracy continued
past the statute-of-limitations period. For the offense in
these conspiracy prosecutions was not the initial act of
agreement, but the banding-together against the law
effected by that act, which continues until termination of