AND · 21usc846:intentional-joinder
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.
Exact element source
conspiresSource:
docroot/ir/usc/title21.jsonl#title21_sec846; Unicode character offsets [56:65] (end exclusive); SHA-256 2e517c5d16d23f29a12a2ee674170178c593255445eb2bf7e8f112f4236ea1e1.All variants
| Variant | Description | Merits instance blocks | Distinct cases | Example cases (up to 3 per group) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| tacit/repeated-distribution-purchases | 1 Satisfied 1; not satisfied 0; excluded context 0 | 1 | /f3d/927/0446-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2019 — satisfied | |
| Unspecified variant | No variant assigned in the database. | 0 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 2 | 0 | No counted merits examples Excluded context examples: /f3d/921/0951-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2019 — applied/procedural; /us/513/0010-01 — Supreme Court of the United States · 1994 — rule-announced/merits |
How courts decided this element
| Case | Element | Holding and scope | Variant | Exact source quotations |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| /f3d/921/0951-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2019 | Knowing and voluntary participation in the agreement | not_reached Excluded from merits counts applied / proceduralProcedural conspiracy-identity ruling; not a fresh merits sufficiency instance. | Unspecified variant | 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."Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_921.jsonl#/f3d/921/0951-01; Unicode character offsets [9860:10078] (end exclusive); SHA-256 9548ccac58b96b23f4639dd698eb70e092ffa90878ae6553b9b59f22ede5657e. |
| /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. |
| /us/513/0010-01 — Supreme Court of the United States · 1994 | Knowing and voluntary participation in the agreement | not_reached Excluded from merits counts rule-announced / merits | Unspecified variant | No source quotation recorded for this block. |
Court interpretations
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.