United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2019-06-11
Case and law context
Role: applied; posture: Jury conviction sufficiency appeal on methamphetamine conspiracy; result: claimant-won; claim:
Instances and excluded annotation blocks
| Case | Element | Holding and scope | Variant | Exact source quotations |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| /f3d/927/0446-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2019 | Agreement of two or more persons to the unlawful object | satisfied Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: proved; party: defendant Potter; subject: party=defendant Potter The court affirms sufficiency of the conspiracy evidence. Repeated distribution-scale purchases plus coordination and financing support the inferred agreement/knowing joinder; a buyer-seller transaction alone is not the stated rule. | tacit/repeated-distribution-purchases | Potter purchased methamphetamine from Hogan on at least six occasions in distribution-level amounts (between 4 and 20 ounces (113 to 566 grams)).Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_927.jsonl#/f3d/927/0446-01; Unicode character offsets [20119:20264] (end exclusive); SHA-256 e2f6057ca05dfd945ac518e7765b2298d106e72992747e73d9d97250674a44c2.Ample evidence showed an agreement.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_927.jsonl#/f3d/927/0446-01; Unicode character offsets [19672:19707] (end exclusive); SHA-256 e2f6057ca05dfd945ac518e7765b2298d106e72992747e73d9d97250674a44c2. |
| /f3d/927/0446-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2019 | Knowing and voluntary participation in the agreement | satisfied Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: proved; party: defendant Potter; subject: party=defendant Potter The court affirms sufficiency of the conspiracy evidence. Repeated distribution-scale purchases plus coordination and financing support the inferred agreement/knowing joinder; a buyer-seller transaction alone is not the stated rule. | tacit/repeated-distribution-purchases | Likewise, Potter continued his distribution efforts from jail by agreeing to front Hilliard funds to buy drugs from Hogan in exchange for a cut.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_927.jsonl#/f3d/927/0446-01; Unicode character offsets [20523:20667] (end exclusive); SHA-256 e2f6057ca05dfd945ac518e7765b2298d106e72992747e73d9d97250674a44c2.The evidence also could lead a rational jury to find § 846 's other elements-that Potter knowingly and voluntarily participated in (that is, joined) the conspiracy.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_927.jsonl#/f3d/927/0446-01; Unicode character offsets [20668:20832] (end exclusive); SHA-256 e2f6057ca05dfd945ac518e7765b2298d106e72992747e73d9d97250674a44c2. |
| /f3d/927/0446-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2019 | Knowledge of the unlawful agreement and objective | satisfied Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: proved; party: defendant Potter; subject: party=defendant Potter The court affirms sufficiency of the conspiracy evidence. Repeated distribution-scale purchases plus coordination and financing support the inferred agreement/knowing joinder; a buyer-seller transaction alone is not the stated rule. | tacit/repeated-distribution-purchases | Likewise, Potter continued his distribution efforts from jail by agreeing to front Hilliard funds to buy drugs from Hogan in exchange for a cut.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_927.jsonl#/f3d/927/0446-01; Unicode character offsets [20523:20667] (end exclusive); SHA-256 e2f6057ca05dfd945ac518e7765b2298d106e72992747e73d9d97250674a44c2.The evidence also could lead a rational jury to find § 846 's other elements-that Potter knowingly and voluntarily participated in (that is, joined) the conspiracy.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_927.jsonl#/f3d/927/0446-01; Unicode character offsets [20668:20832] (end exclusive); SHA-256 e2f6057ca05dfd945ac518e7765b2298d106e72992747e73d9d97250674a44c2. |
Court interpretations recorded from this case
interpretation
agreement to violate the drug laws need not be express or formal. A tacit or mutual understanding among the parties is sufficient.
/f3d/927/0446-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2019
agreement to violate the drug laws need not be express or formal. A tacit or mutual understanding among the parties is sufficient.Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_927.jsonl#/f3d/927/0446-01; Unicode character offsets [19732:19862] (end exclusive); SHA-256 e2f6057ca05dfd945ac518e7765b2298d106e72992747e73d9d97250674a44c2.A buyer-seller transaction alone does not establish agreement to a further distribution conspiracy. Repetition/quantity and coordinated dealings can support the inference; no mechanical transaction-count rule is asserted.
interpretation
So whether phrased as two elements or three, a conviction under § 846 requires an agreement to violate the drug laws, the defendant's knowledge of the agreement, and the defendant's decision to voluntarily join (or "participate in") it.
/f3d/927/0446-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2019
So whether phrased as two elements or three, a conviction under § 846 requires an agreement to violate the drug laws, the defendant's knowledge of the agreement, and the defendant's decision to voluntarily join (or "participate in") it.Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_927.jsonl#/f3d/927/0446-01; Unicode character offsets [19358:19594] (end exclusive); SHA-256 e2f6057ca05dfd945ac518e7765b2298d106e72992747e73d9d97250674a44c2.Potter reconciles two- and three-part formulations. Participation distinguishes intentional joinder from mere presence; it cannot resurrect the overt-act requirement rejected by Shabani. Separate knowledge and volition are required, without an additional universal act requirement.