Source: cases/21usc846/f3d-921-951-leal.case
Case source: https://www.neochart.com/catalog/cases/f3d/volume_921/0951_01/index.html
This hardly supports an inference that they pursued a shared common objective or that the Tapia deal "[was] necessary or advantageous to the success" of the conspirators in the Carmona deal.
casedsl 1 case /f3d/921/0951-01 name U.S. v. Leal cite 921 F.3d 951 (2019) court United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit date 2019-04-22 url catalog/cases/f3d/volume_921/0951_01/index.html source ir/caselaw/f3d_921.jsonl sha1=42db818871232aa3d4a60109605e595e2679a319 chars=35088 law 21usc846 role applied posture Double-jeopardy appeal addressing whether separate drug agreements formed one conspiracy result claimant-won element agreement : not-satisfied [law] scope procedural role applied party defendant Leal theory identity of successive conspiracies variant double-jeopardy/separate-deals-linked-by-informant fact @19598..19783 [cuts-against absent] | Here, there is no evidence that (1) Ms. Tapia or Mr. Carmona were "major buyers," (2) they obtained their drugs from the same supplier, or (3) Mr. Leal was a supplier to either of them. held @19856..20046 | This hardly supports an inference that they pursued a shared common objective or that the Tapia deal "[was] necessary or advantageous to the success" of the conspirators in the Carmona deal. gloss The court rejects the proposed inference that two prosecuted deals were the same conspiracy for double-jeopardy purposes. It does not find either prosecution lacks all agreement or that Leal acted only with an informant. element intentional-joinder : not-reached scope procedural role applied rule @9860..10078 [quoted] | Although two or more people must agree to form a conspiracy, an informant cannot count toward that requirement: "[T]here can be no indictable conspiracy involving only the defendant and government agents or informers." gloss Procedural conspiracy-identity ruling; not a fresh merits sufficiency instance. misfit Agreement identity is relational across two conspiracies; the schema reuses agreement with procedural scope and cannot express a two-case identity edge. The no-informant-only-conspiracy rule is not a finding that either charged conspiracy lacked a genuine coconspirator. misfit Claimant outcome refers to the prosecuting government, not the defendant-appellant; remanded and mixed retain unresolved or split dispositions.