United States v. Borelli - 336 F.2d 376 (2d Cir. 1964)

Rule:

The government must present evidence justifying the jury in finding beyond a reasonable doubt that the particular agreement into which a defendant entered continued into the period not barred by limitation, and the scope of his agreement must be determined individually from what was proved as to him. If in order for a man to be held for joining others in a conspiracy, he must in some sense promote their venture himself, make it his own, it becomes essential to determine just what he is promoting and making "his own."

Facts:

Defendants were involved in the business of importing, distributing, and selling illegal drugs. The business involved numerous exporters, importers, wholesalers, middlemen, and retailers who were part of the scheme at various times over the course of nine years. All of the involved defendants were charged and convicted of a single conspiracy. On appeal, defendants contended the evidence showed several conspiracies and the judge’s failure to furnish the jury with an intelligible criterion for determining the issue of the one versus the many conspiracies constituted plain error.

Issue:

Did the judge’s failure to furnish the jury with an intelligible criterion for determining the issue of the one versus the many conspiracies constitute plain error? 

Answer:

Yes.

Conclusion:

The court reversed the convictions and directed a new trial holding that the lower court committed error, and the case required a more carefully defined submission to the jury regarding the issue of a single versus many conspiracies. According to the court, the issue of whether there was a single or several conspiracies was extraordinarily significant, because the issue bore importantly on the problem of the statute of limitations.