DEFENSE · 21usc846:withdrawal-limitations
Smith, 568 U.S. 106, 110-14 (2013), is judicial interpretation applied to section 846 and RICO conspiracies, not an exception written into section 846. Defendant bears withdrawal by a preponderance; affirmative disavowal/defeat of the conspiracy is required, not mere inactivity. Government still must prove a timely continuing conspiracy when limitations is raised. The formula negates this combined time-bar defense, not withdrawal standing alone; termination, tolling, waiver, and offense-specific limitations must be assessed separately.
Exact element source
conspiresSource:
docroot/ir/usc/title21.jsonl#title21_sec846; Unicode character offsets [56:65] (end exclusive); SHA-256 2e517c5d16d23f29a12a2ee674170178c593255445eb2bf7e8f112f4236ea1e1.Routes and case patterns
No routes recorded for this element.
How courts decided this element
| Case | Element | Holding and scope | Pattern | Exact source quotations |
|---|
Court interpretations
interpretation
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.
Smith v. United States — 568 U.S. 106 · Supreme Court of the United States · 2013 (21usc846: author: unavailable · not independently reviewed)
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.Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/us_568.jsonl#/us/568/0106-01; Unicode character offsets [6767:6977] (end exclusive); SHA-256 2cec9bb656768b30adb76650fd51463021500b8da0fb61cc8a4439e6f7da1288.Smith, 568 U.S. 106, 110-14 (2013), is judicial interpretation applied to section 846 and RICO conspiracies, not an exception written into section 846. Defendant bears withdrawal by a preponderance; affirmative disavowal/defeat of the conspiracy is required, not mere inactivity. Government still must prove a timely continuing conspiracy when limitations is raised. The formula negates this combined time-bar defense, not withdrawal standing alone; termination, tolling, waiver, and offense-specific limitations must be assessed separately.
interpretation
Establishing individual withdrawal was a burden that rested firmly on the defendant regardless of when the purported withdrawal took place.
Smith v. United States — 568 U.S. 106 · Supreme Court of the United States · 2013 (21usc846: author: unavailable · not independently reviewed)
Establishing individual withdrawal was a burden that rested firmly on the defendant regardless of when the purported withdrawal took place.Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/us_568.jsonl#/us/568/0106-01; Unicode character offsets [4417:4556] (end exclusive); SHA-256 2cec9bb656768b30adb76650fd51463021500b8da0fb61cc8a4439e6f7da1288.Smith, 568 U.S. 106, 110-14 (2013), is judicial interpretation applied to section 846 and RICO conspiracies, not an exception written into section 846. Defendant bears withdrawal by a preponderance; affirmative disavowal/defeat of the conspiracy is required, not mere inactivity. Government still must prove a timely continuing conspiracy when limitations is raised. The formula negates this combined time-bar defense, not withdrawal standing alone; termination, tolling, waiver, and offense-specific limitations must be assessed separately.